^^K o -.Wf,. -^^ .>^.> ,- .^ -.Wf:.- „, 



J> -^ 








4 o 








'^•o^ 





^o-n.^ 




v-^^ 






.^^ 



'^•o^ 








V ,/\ •.^° ^*'% ''WW: /\ -.^S^.. 






-^<^* .V... -;«>. 



fv\ , " o 



■^' ■rtv 









a - 



I o vP„ d J 



0^ o^^,;^^^- ^^^> -£m 



.He 






"-n^o^ 






'^j. 
^ 



.^' 






ON THF. 



■• . A^B THE 



DELIVERED 



FOURTH OF JULY, 1809. 



BY THOMAS S. GRIMKE, 

» • ■ 



SPEECft 



/ 



OF THOniAS S. GRII^KEj 

DKI.IVISKKD 

IK DECEMBER, 1828, 

' '' ' ' Aon 

AND 

ON THK TJIUE NATURE 

BOTH PEDICJlTED 

To the Peojjle of South- Carolina. 



<rijarlcf.ton. 

PKINTEl> BY \V. KILtV, 110 CIIUUC U • ST.1E FT. 



1829. 






N. B. A Table ot Contents 6t the Oration, 
i^peech and Notes, will be found at the end of 
the Pamphlel. 



AN 

DELIVERED 

IN ST. PHILIP'S CHURCHj 

BEFORE THE 

INHABITANTS OF CHARLSSTON> 

ON THE 

FOURTH OF JULY, 1809, 

BY THE APPOINTMENT OP THE 

South Carolina State Society of Cincinnati, 

AND 

Published «t the request of that Society, and of the 
American Retrolution Society. 



BY THOMAS S. GRIMKE, 

MEMBER OF THE CINCINNATI. 



." The unity of g oirernnienf , which constitutes you one people, it a main 
pillar in the edifice of your real independence ; the support of your tran- 
quility at borne, your peace abroad ; of your safety ; of your prosperity ; 
of that very liberty, which you so highly prize."— Wathington's Valedictory 
Mdress. 



Warn quacunque prius de patti -r— «p»«e /"^S^*'^ ^^ ^ ♦ J, 



«• CpQItituts, bac r«b,«t «f it pars janua letbi."— I««r, ' ^ 



CBARIiESTON* 

RB-PRINTED BT WM. RILEY, 110 gHURCH-JTEEBT. 

1839. 

1 



TO THE 
PEOPLE OF SOUTH-CAROLINA. 

Fellow Citizens, 

In republishing, for the purpose of dedicating to you, an 
Oration written twenty years ago, in favour of the wisdona 
and expediency of Union, and against the folly and madness 
of Disunion, I trust that the present crisis will be my best 
apology. 

I have gathered from the experience and reflections of 
twenty years, the most ample confirmation of every argument 
and opinion, in the following composition. I lay before you, 
at the same time, the sentiments of the young man, just en- 
tering on the business of life, and glowing with the ardent 
feelings of early manhood ; and those of the same person, in 
the maturity of years, earnestly and affectionately vindica- 
ting the same cause, the Union of these States. May he. 
stand absolved, at the tribunal of his Country, from all im- 
putations, unworthy of the Carolidan and the American. 
For myself, I feel, that fortune and happiness, yea, even 
life itself, would lose their chief value, if these States, 
though Christian and educated communities, should ever 
cease to be United. Our Country would then no longer be 
the land of Peace, Forbearance and Brotherly love ; of 
mutual emulation and improvement ; of a common ancestry, 
to be reverenced, and imitated by each; and of a common 
posterity, to be loved and provided for by all. May that 
Providence, which trained us up through the infancy, child- 
hood, and youth of colonial dependence, and which hath called 
us forth, at his own appointed time, a free and independent 
Nation, to be a light, and example, and warning to the world, 
uever reserve for us, in the tlarkest hour of his wrath, the 
SCOURGE OF Disunion. We must expect our trials and due 
chastisements, for national transgressions. We have sinned, 
and we shall continue to sin against the Ruler and Judge of 
nations. But, when our day of affliction shall overtake us, 
that we may then have those pure, affecting consolations, 
which soothe and strengthen the mourners of one familt, 
ONE HOUSEHOLD, Will ever be the trust and prayer 

Of your Servant, 

and Fellow Citizen, 

THOMAS S. GRIMKE. 

Ckarlestorij 2d JVov. 1829. 



^tf #VAtion* 



SHALL the creative eye of the poet still find in the 
j^vorks of nature, the attractions of novelty ? Shall the 
statesman acknowledge that political science opens a rich 
and spacious field for investigation, and the philosopher dis- 
cover new wonders in the natural, and fresh beauties in the 
moral world? And shall the advocate of patriotism, the 
eulogist of departed worth, the orator of Independence, 
complain that his subject is barren and uninteresting ? Do 
the blessings of Heaven descend on a country, more favoured 
than ours ? Or does the world contain a nation, more strik- 
ingly distinguished ? Does the wide circle of human know- 
ledge embrace a theme more fertile than Liberty ? Or 
the annals of history an aera, more glorious and eventful, than 
American Independence ? While, therefore, Freedom 
-shall be the eastern star, which guides this country to 
prosperity and happiness : while the energy of public virtue 
shall arm the citizen with fortitude, and the soldier with in- 
trepidity : when the storied urns of our martyred heroes 
shall have mingled with the dust they recorded, and our Age 
will be hallowed with the name of antiquity, the orator of 
this day shall never find his subject deficient in novelty and 
instruction. And, when be remembers how many thousands 
have crimsoned with their blood, the very fields, whose har- 
vest waves only for him; and how long the gates of peace were 
closed against his country, before she could establish those 
rights, which he rises to commemorate, what mingled emo- 
tions must agitate his bosom ! Called forth on such an occa- 
sion, before such an audience, in such a place, how must 
the pale flame of languor and diffidence brighten into the 
blaze of enthusiasm and manly confidence ! 

Hitherto, you have heard the messenger of peace pro- 
claiming you the favorites of Heaven, and inculcating the 



4 

sister virtues of the patriot and the Christian : or you have 
listened with admiration, as the statesman described the 
masterly schemes of policy, which he had assisted in establish- 
ing, or painted to your view the subtile machinery of gov » 
ernnrent. And often, with the smile of exultation and the 
tear of sympathy, have you followed the laureled veteran, 
whilst in imagination he grasped with feeble hand, the sword 
of his youth, and planted again the standard of his country, 
on the battlements of her foes. But now, the minister of 
Heaven sleeps with those, over whom his benedictions were 
so often pronounced. The voice of the statesman of seventy- 
six is seldom heard, but in the trumpet of fame. And the 
revolutionary soldier daily meets death, with a smile, since 
the mould, which receives him, is sacred to freedom and to 
honor Henceforth the child shall be taught to revere the 
spot where they repose ; the stranger shall tread lightly the 
verdant turf which covers them; and the future historian 
and orator, shall visit their hallowed graves, to kindle in his 
bosom the admiration of virtue and the spirit of eloquence. 
Henceforth, the rising generation shall be called to perpetu- 
ate the blessings, secured by the wisdom and valor of their 
predecessors. The young man shall minister at the altar of 
Liberty, which his parent had built, and proclaim to assem- 
bled thousands, the glory and usefulness of their fathers. 

Happy had it been for America, thrice happy for him, 
who addresses you this day, had the subject, which is to en- 
gage your attention, been the subject of his choice. He 
might then have dwelt on the influence, which our revolution 
has had on the world at large, or have traced its more fa- 
miliar effects in our native land. He might have explained 
the importance of great national principles, or hare unfolded 
the fatal consequciices, which often result from their decay. 
But the imprudence of some and the corruption of others 
have forced a theme on the public ear, at which every friend 
to his country must start and tremble. They would efface 
from the tomb of Washington, its brightest inscription, " The 
Common Father of one Common Country." They have 
proclaimed aloud, that these ought to be no longer United 



Slates: that tlie arm, which severs us, will bring sah'atloji 
to America: that the constituted authority, which pronounces 
our national divorce, will speak with the voice of Heaveta. 

Could you cease to be Americans ; could you rend from 
your hearts the feelings, which nature gave and your country 
has cherished ; could you assume the changeful garment of 
the courtier, or wear the imposing mask of the hireling ; 
you might listen unmoved to such a suggestion. But there 
is no communion between purity and corruption, between 
harmony ami discord, between patriotism and treachery. 
When, however, the burst of indignation has subsided, 
strengthen the persuasion of feeling by the convictions of 
understanding, and build the firm resolve to be united, on 
the eternal basis of truth and reason. But open with the 
deepest awe, the volume, which contains the principles of 
union : reverence it, next to the temples and altars of oiir 
God : think, when you approach It, that you hear a voice 
from the tomb of Washington exclaiming, " the place, 
whereon thou slandest is holy ground:" think, that you be- 
hold a flaming sword, " turning every way to guard the 
path to this tree of life." 

Even if the impolicy of Britain had not precipitiited llie 
moment of separation, yet the time was approaching, when 
this country must have been free. The child, as he matures 
in age, assumes the dignity and independence, with the 
vigour of manhood : and the iron links, which bind the colony 
to the footstool of a Sovereign, give place to the golden 
chain, which secures the rights, the interest, and the glory 
of nations. If our Independence had sprung from the pro- 
gressive operation of the great principles of society, it might 
be a question, whether we ought to have formed but one 
government, and whether we ever would. But the iron 
sceptre of power drew^ around us all one common circle of 
defiance, and bade us submit to one common law of universal 
slavery. Hence, Americans " established in war," inter- 
course of sentiment, and uniformity of conduct ; and contin- 
ued in peace " a united cause, and a united nation." 

From whatever source our arguments may be drawn, and 



i;vhatever may be the chain of reasoning we pursue, stiti 
shall we find, that Union is the vital principle of our perma- 
nent happiness. (f we argue from theoretical politics, 
we shall see them confirmed by the testimony of expe- 
rience : and if unsatisfied by these, we demand higher evi- 
dence, we shall discover it from the survey of our own 
country, in its domestic and foreign relations. 

Speculation, even in the philosophy of mind, its pecu- 
liar province, is often deficient in clearness and uniformity, 
yet we know that its principles are founded on the 
nature of man, and have often been advantageously employed 
by the sagacious statesman. As the science of theoretical poli- 
tics arose out of the disorders or miseries of the subject^ and 
the errors or usurpations of the ruler, we may often resort to 
it with success, for the leading principles of national greatness 
or national degradation. Led by this glimmering light, we 
may arrive at many of the fundamental maxims of sound 
policy. This will teach us that tfee wider the interval be- 
tween united governments and the rest of the world, the 
more is union tiic soul of their existence : that if (heir 
disunion be profitable to others, it certainly will be danger- 
ous to themselves ; and that it is easier to excite jealousy 
and dissfuision between neighbouring nations, than between 
<!:ft"rtrent parts of the same empire. Thus also we may 
learn, that union promotes the great objects of government: 
that it multiplies, improves, and strengthens the resources 
of a people : and as the nature of nations and individuals is, 
in this respect the same, divided states are, when at peace, 
faithless and suspicious, and when hostile, the most bitter 
and destructive foes. 

Unavailing, however, would solitary speculation be, w-ere 
not its precepts corroborated by experience. In vain had 
the morning star of reason shone on the benighted scenes of 
human life, had it not been followed by the Sun of Revela- 
tion. Equally, in vain, would theory presume to guide 
us, did not its winding paths so frequently terminate in the 
broad road of experience. But the page of speculation is 
often found to be a faithful counterpart to the past, and a 



prophetic anticipation of thtt future. Here, we shall per- 
ceive, that thoHgh danger and necessity were the origin of 
most confederacies, the advantages of union were the foun- 
dation of their continuance.* Tills salutary principle is evi- 
denced from the conduct of monarchies, and even in the 
measures of savage jjations, the same maxim is equally ap- 
parent. But though the stern dictates of sudden emergen- 
cy have sometimes united independent nations in one com- 
mon cause, let us not forget that it was under circumstances 
peculiarly favourable. For experience testifies that like 
the prophetic voice, which warned Rome of impending ruin 
from the Gauls, the admonitions of threatened destruction 
are often unavailing. If union of interest would always 
lead to union of power, why did not Greece, v\ ith one voice, 
assert her resolve to be free, when invaded hy Philip .'' Why 
were not the Sabine cities allied against the usurpations of 
Romulus .'' And the states, which composed the Heptarchy, 
against the ambitious projects of Egbert .'' These examples- 
unequivocally declare, that, when once the spirit of jealousy 
and the pride of sovereignty influence the counsels of inde- 
pendent, and especially of neighbouring nations, the appeal 
to public welfare, the cries of individual misery, and the 
claims of posterity are all disregarded. 

Nor let us indulge the persuasion, that those, whom duty 
and interest bind together, will always stand firm and united, 
in the hour of a nation's peril. To what then but this, shall 
we attribute the want of energy and unanimity in Spain? 
Had all her powers been vigorously and harmoniously exert- 
ed, we might have hoped to see the progress of tyranny suc- 
cessfully opposed. In vain, however, on this very day, of 
the last year, did the junta of Seville, like our illustrious 
congress of '76, invoke the God of nature and of nations, to 
nerve their arms in battle, and enlighten their minds in coun- 

* The history of the Achoean and Helvetic confederacies, furnishes a 
striking exemplification of this. The former, which consisted of twelve ci- 
ties, and lasted 130 years, began B. C, 284, from the union of three. The 
latter was at first composed of three can4ons, but comprised evfntually thtr- 
teen. 



s 

cil. In vain, was the voice ot vengeance heard from every 
province of Spain, amid the wreck of a dissolving govern- 
ment. In vain did thousands of swords glitter in the uplifted 
hands of an incensed nation, to lightthem through the storms 
of war, to the regions of freedom and peace. But the armies 
of her enemy rushed in one mighty flood, from the summit 
of the Pyrenees ; and in a moment, the rights, the glory, and 
the happiness of Spain were swept into the shoreless ocean 
of tyranny. Then we beheld the proud genius of that devo- 
ted country, borne aloft in the fiery chariot of despotism, 
nor hath she left behind her even the mantle of Hope, to 
cover the nakedness of despair. But shall we not believe 
that the time will yet come, perhaps even now is come, when 
in the midnight of that nation's misery and humiliation, the 
shackles of the captive shall drop from his limbs, and the 
doors of his prison burst open spontaneously: when the earth- 
quake of revolution shall humble the proud towers of despo- 
tism in the dust, and the great apostles of patriotism fthall 
swell the loud anthem of praise and gratitude, for their 
counti'y's deliverance- 

But, if the fate of Spain speak not a language sufficiently 
impressive, turn to the republics of Greece, and listen to 
the faint murmur of jidmonition, that issues from the shat- 
tered tomb of their freedom and glory. If moral and politi- 
cal corruption vvere the efficient causes of their ruin, the 
daring hand of discord administered the fatal poison. When 
united against Persia, they presented as sublime a sight as 
the world has ever witnessed. Then we beheld a band of 
heroes rush from the calm vale of retirement, at their coun- 
try's call, great in the conscious dignity of nature, and the 
pure energy of republican virtue. Then we beheld citie? 
opposed to nations, and a people to the world. 

At that period, Greece furnished the noblest materials 
for a happy and permanent union. In each state, virtue was 
the predominating principle of the constitution: public good 
the object of the individual, and national prosperity the sole 
reward of the ruler. The soldier then was but the citizen 
h disguise; his only jealousy was, for ths preservatioo of 



ctomestic harmony ; his only fear, lest he should outlive thd 
liberties of his country ; his only wish, to hand down to pos- 
terity the blessings, which he had received from his fathers. 
If they had then become but one n£rtio«, under one general 
government, they might have resisted successfully even the 
gigantic power of Rome, and have vied with the bright re- 
cords of glory and happiness, which fame shall transcribe front 
the annals of America. But, when the storm had passed 
away, whose fury had driven them to the same shelter, 
when the serene sky of peace and independence invited to 
the enjoyment of its genial influence, the spirit of discord 
frowned on the brightening prospect. Witiv one consent, 
they levelled the encircling ramparts of union, and rushed^ 
like the prodigal, to revel in the lawless excesses of licen- 
tiousness and ambition. They overturned the altar they had 
consecrated to the genius of their common country, and soon 
we beheld that genius, mourning amid the ruined monuments 
of his greatness, and shedding the tear o^ unavailing regret, 
on the hallowed plains of Marathon and Plataea. 

But vain would be the testimony of speculation, and equal- 
ly vain the combined experience of three thousand years, 
could we not trace their application to ourselves ; and dis- 
cover in our domestic and foreign relations, arguments for 
our union, which the sophist cannot answer, and the sceptic 
dare not question. Let us now examine our internal situa- 
tion, and we shall perceive that the nature of our government^, 
our intimate connection with each other, and the rapid pro- 
gress of public prosperity since the revolution, are links in. 
x chain of reasoning, peculiar to ourselves. 

In pursuing the train of thoughts, suggested by this part 
of our subject, we must be sensible, that the principle of 
unipn is more perfect in our system, than in any other. With 
«s, each state retains such rights and powers, as are essen- 
tial to its individual interest ; while the general government 
is invested with those, which concern the duties and 
happiness of all. Congress acts for all, with regard to foreign 
countries, as one united nation ; and for all, when considered 
.in themselves, as consisting of parts necessarily different, yet 
2 



10 

closely allied. With us, no single State can constitutionally 
affect the proceedings of the national legislature, or be ex- 
clusively the ally of other powers. If ever a political scheme 
resembled the Divine government, it is ours, where each 
exists for the whole, and the whole for each. As in the 
planetary world, so in our system, each has its own peculiar 
laws ; and the harmonious movement of the whole is but * 
natural emanation from the cooperative influence of the 
parts. 

To the principle of union, we may add the principle of 
renovation. Our governmeut is the only just medium between 
despotism, where the rights of nature vanish in the slavery 
of the subject, and pure democracy, in which the subordina- 
tion of the citizen is lost in the licentiousness of the man. 
Ours only is, in a word, the real government of the people, 
where Ils^islative power is the delegated will of the whole, 
and civil authority the representative force of all : in which 
the duties of the individual are not neglected, as at Athens, 
for the privileges of the citizen ; nor, as in the United Pro* 
vinces, are the immunities of the latter forgotten in the in- 
terest of the former. Hence the administration cannot long 
be inconsistent with the views and wishes of the people. The 
policy, which is fatal to their welfare and at variance with 
their principles, is ruinous in itself, and soon gives way to 
measures, more popular and judicious. If the interests of 
the community suffer, they are the judges, and their good 
sense will soon compel their rulers to see and correct the 
impolicy of their measures. What though the power of aa 
individual, disorder, for a moment, like the comet descend- 
ing into our system, the harmony of the whole, the elastic 
spring of such a government would act with redoubled force* 
and expel him from the bosom of his country. What though 
the mighty torrent of faction swell beyoad its limits, and 
threaten an universal deluge, yet shall it soon be lost in the 
vast ocean of public good, and public virtue. 

The principle of improvement is intimately connected witk 
that of renovation. Neither can exist, bat in a representa- 
tive government ; and each attains the height of perfection 



11 

aiAy in a republic like ours. Unshac&Ied by natiousri 
establishments, like the democracies of antiquity, our fo- 
reign and domestic regulations must always vary with the 
actual state of our country. Whilst agriculture, manufac- 
tures, and commerce, shall be the main pillars of American 
greatness, the spirit of improvement in them will govern the 
policy of our national legislature. Hence we have no rea. 
son to fear, that we shall ever justify the remark of an emi- 
nent politieal writer, "that the laws, which aggrandize, are not 
those which preserve a nation," There was a point, be- 
yond which the institutions of Sparta and Rome could not 
operate ; but to the principle of union, the principle of 
renovation, and the principle of improvement, no prophetic 
voice shall ever be heard to say, *' Thus far shall ye go, and no 
farther." The former resembles the human body, which 
after a season spontaneously languishes and decays ; whilst, 
like the immortal spirit, the latter, did not the decrees of 
Heaven forbid it, would flourish in never-fading energy and 
beauty. 

These arguments, deduced from the nature of our govern- 
ment, are strongly corroborated by those, which arise fronr 
a suFvey of our mutual connections and dependence. 

He, who casts his eye over our happy land, must per* 
ceive that we form a little political world in ourselves; 
that our country seems, as was said of Laconia, to be but the. 
patrimony of a band of brothers : that we appear to be ano- 
ther favored race, sent out by Heaven, from the storms 
and'miseries of Europe, to dwell in this land of promise. 

The object of every government ought to be the happi- 
Ness of man, though the measures adopted by each are es- 
sentially different. Fortunately for America, every Stat© 
in the Union, acknowledges, that property is the only true 
foundation of society ; that the rights of the citizen are the 
vital principles of the Constitution, and the interest of the- 
individual the vital principle of the community, that the wel- 
fare of the whole, not the aggrandizement of a part, the fe- 
licity of the people and not the glory of the ruler, should 
ever be the aim of the administration. Whilst then w» 



12 

thus agree in those leading features, In which the parts of a 
great nation, ought to resemble each other, let not immate- 
rial differences excite the spirit of dissension. Were one 
state a monarchy, and another an aristocracy ;* were this 
like Carthage, but a company of merchants, and that, like 
Sparta, but a band of soldiers, there might be grounds for 
tomplaint. 

Let not contrariety of character be urged as an argument. 
Shall we find uniformity in the same state, the same city, or 
even in the same family ? Why then desire it, in an exten- 
sive country? In Switzerland, some cantons were catholic 
and others protestant, some republican and others aristocra- 
tical, some refined and elegant as Athens, others rude and 
unpolished as Sparta. Nor let diversity ofinterest be ob- 
jected. Were this the same in the north and south, would 
it not imply a similarity of local situation and natural advan- 
tages .'' Where also tVould be the carrying trade, where the 
mutual interchange of luxuries for necessaries, of raw mate 
rials for manufactures .-' Disunion would then be less fatal, 
because each would be independent of the other. But ex- 
perience teaches us that the clashing of the different, yiet 
connected interests of separate powers, threatens both with 
destruction. 

If the influence of individual Statfes be complained of now, 
how must the danger increase, the narrower the sphere of 
its action ! And if the politics of some particular states are 
followed too seihvilely in others, whilst we are but one peo- 
ple, how soon should we behold the fatal effects flowing from 
the truth remarked by an eminent statesmau, " that men 
are often more attached to the country of their principles, 
than to the country of their birth." Wealth, talents and 
population must always command superiority, and it is no 
less absurd to imagine that particular states should not take 
the lead in the American republic, than to be surprised, 

* " Aussi voyons nous dans l* Histoire Romfiine, que lorsque tes Veiens 
eurent choisi un Roi, toutes lespetites republiques de Toscane lesahnndon- 
nerent. Tout fut perdu en Grece, lorsque les Rois de JVJacedoine ob- 
tinrent un« place, parmt les Ampbictions."-'Afon(. dp- d. I^oix. t. 9. C S>. 



IS 

because Athens and Sparta stood foremost in Greece. So 
far from militating against a union, this furnishes one of the 
strongest arguments, arising from our internal situation. — 
Were these powerful states the leaders of separate confed- 
eracies, how much greater would their relative influence 
be, and how much more pernicious to their own united go- 
vernment, and to the neighboring republics. Athens and 
Sparta, when independent, were too powerful for the liberty 
and happiness of Greece ; and the operation of similar prin- 
ciples, if we divide, 'may carry down the grey hairs of the 
present generation, with sorrow to the grave. 

There are limits to ihe powers of government, no less 
than to those of the human mind ; but the more extensive 
our general administration, within reasonable bounds, the 
more will its schemes of policy be liberal and enlightened. 
The less also will they be affected by local interest and local 
poVver ; by individual enmity, sellishness and ambition. — 
These are some of the causes, which, if less restricted, 
would prove our ruin ; but confined and blended, as they 
now are, cooperate for the welfare of the whole. Notwith- 
standing the conflicting politics and interests of different parts 
of the union, we find that the individuals of the nation are 
generally harmonious, and that local views and local antipa- 
thies are lost in the expansive rights of the American citi- 
zen. But, when disunited, even these advantages must va- 
nish ; for we shall then have no common character, no com- 
mon constitution, no common country. 

As the policy and interest ot each State are peculiar, and 
tontinually vary, they ought to be regulated, as to internal 
concerns, by itself. If, however, you narrow the system, 
of which it is a part, its private welfare must be more fre- 
quently sacrificed to the general good of the whole. Hence, 
also, those inconveniences, which are now diffused over the 
nation, would be more severely felt, when confined to a part. 
All now suffer or rejoice together ; but then, the degrada- 
tion of this would be the aggraidizement of that ; and the 
decliae of one would iovigorate the spirit of enterprise in 
another. 



u 

Let us conclude this survey of our internal connections, bf 
considering the influence of the social principle, in strength- 
ening the bonds of our union. In examining the operation of 
this universal cause, we may trace it distinctly in its emana- 
tions from the parent to his family, from the individual to his 
neighbors, and thence to the Avider circle of his friends and 
acquaintance. We may perceive it successively varying and 
enlarging, as it interweaves the several ranks of Society, 
unites the diversified classes of the town with the more uni- 
form inhabitants of the country and combines the influence 
of individuals aad families, of cities and provinces, in forming 
the complex, but harmonious system of society. When we 
apply these views to our own country, we shall perceive them 
strikingly exemplified. We may follow the priociple of as- 
sociation from each state to fts neighbours, and from them to 
the union at large. And as the prospect expands, we shall 
behold the ties of nature and friendship, the calls of duty and 
interest, the rights of man, and the privileges of the citizen^ 
uniting to form the sacred and mysterious bond of our 
union. 

From the constitution of our government, and our natural 
alliance with each other, the transition is easy t6' the rapid 
progress of our country, since we became a confederate re- 
public. If we begin with our own State, we shall behold 
our political and civil institutions continually improving ; re- 
ligion and knowledge more widely diff'used ; civilization ex- 
tending in the country, and refinement in the city ; discordant 
parts successively assuming the uniformity of the whole, and 
confusion gradually subsiding into order. Travel through 
each of our sister States, and you may observe with pleasure 
and surprize the operation of similar principles. These 
will be seen, however, to vary with the nature of the coun- 
try, the genius of the people, and the Spirit of the Constitu- 
tion. Then conceive yourselves elevated to an eminence, 
whence the eye may embrace the wide circuit of our happy 
land. Think what it was, when first we became a nation j 
consider its present state, and mark the gradual advancement 
of prosperity and power. -See the forest retiring, and the^ 



15 

village expanding into the populous tow'h: see this Vn turn 
swelling into the magnificence and greatness of the city. Sae 
the groves descending from our mountains, and rising again 
in the stately ship, or the spacious edifice. See the white 
sails of commerce gliding through the woods on the river or 
canal ; and in countless numbers, brightening on the azure- 
surface of the ocean, like the stars on the bosom of heavenr. 
Behold the genius of enterprize collecting his bands of ad- 
venturers, and leading them to the western wilds. Behold I 
the mountains open to affoid them a passage ; the dark wave 
of the desert rolls back at their approach ; the gloomy spirit 
of solitude retires before them, and the grateful wanderer 
builds the verdant altar to agriculture and peace. Then 
behold! the forest bends beneath his strokes, the orchard 
iimiles on the hill, the harvest waves in the valley, and the 
song of the reaper is heard in the silence of the wilder- 
ness. 

The reasoning thus founded on the nature of our govern- 
ment, our mutual connections, and the rapid progress of our 
republic, are alone sufficient to convince us. But, when we 
reflect on our relations with the rest of the world, every 
argument acquires new energy, every principle new impor- 
tance, and conviction flashes across the mind, with a brighter 
and a purer blaze. 

Were the United States the only nation on earth, or could 
they live entirely within themselves, the qOestion would 
assume a difierent aspect. But in the actual state of the 
world, the policy of our country and the wants of other na- 
tions render it impossible. In vain might we forge the fet. 
ters of domestic restriction, they would melt from around us 
in the fierce tires of interest. In vain might we build the ram- 
parts of foreign prohibition, like the walls of Jerieho, they 
would fall as of their own accord. America then, must be 
connected with other nations, and must be influenced by 
them. The policy, therefore, of our young and flourishing 
country, is to preserve our interests as distinct as possible, 
from those of other nations. This we shall be enabled to- 
do more effectually, by union, thw by public virtue at horn© 



16 

and public faith abroad, if once we divide. From experi- 
ence wo learn, that interests different in themselves are yet 
the same, when contrasted with those of others. Hence, 
though the locals policy of one part of America, be at vari- 
ance with that of another, they are one and the same, when 
considered in relation to the tendency of foreign influence. 
Now, from the operation of this cause, the interest of one 
part of the union, will never govern the national alliances 
and welfare of the whole ; but when disunited, each must 
be the ally or the foe of the powerful nations of Europe^ 
Were there but one great nation in the world beside our- 
selves, she would always be decidedly hostile or favorable 
to us. Whilst, therefore, our confiederacy lasts, other go- 
vernments may perplex, but cannot confound us ; they may 
injure our interests, brut not our liberties ; they may exas- 
perate us mutually as fellow-citizens, but never can arm us 
against each other as enemies. So long as we continue uni- 
ted, our alliance will be an important object to Europeans ; 
and our interest will be eventually secured by its intimate 
connection with theirs. But when we cease to be one peo- 
ple, we must treat with them as a favor, perhaps for pro- 
tection, even at the expense of our rights. Do we complain 
then of foreign influence now, and shall we separate and hope 
to escape the gigantic arm, which is stretched across, 
the Atlantic to destroy us .-* 

In every republican government there must be diversity 
of opinion. If all are ever united in time of peace, it beto- 
kens indeed sometimes universal enthusiasm, or universal 
virtue, but almost always universal corruption. The puW'C 
calm, which exists in the absence of party, is the gloom of 
midnight, before the blazing vulcano lights up the darkeaed 
ocean ; it is the awful pause of nature^ before she is devai5> 
tated by the tempest. Experience teaches us, that in exten- 
sive governments, the contentions of party are a wa,r of wprds 
and influence, but in small, states, they beoonie the contes,t.of 
the sword. In one, it is the citizen, who freely asierts his 
principles; in the other, it is the individual, who combats with 
the weapons of personal. interest aad personal eiunity* As 



17 

soon then as disunion ensues, each state will be torn by Ua 
own parties, and foreign influence will inflame them against 
^ach other, and each against all the rest. Then would the 
waves of faction dash with fatal success against the rock of 
our freedom, and all the proud monuments of glory andliber- 
ty would perish in one boundless deluge of corruption and 
ruin. Then, no Ararat would swell above the flood, no 
dove would bear the olive-brancb of peace, and the vir* 
tuous republican of future days would exclaim, 

" » l i Thy lofty domes, no more^ 

f^ Not e'en the ruing of thy pomp remain, 
*♦ Hot e'en the dust they gunk in — ^~ — .' 

Thus have we endeavored faithfully to survey the grounds, 
on which the friends of union rest their arguments for its 
continuance. We beheld the faint light of speculation blend- 
ing with the bright and steady flame of experience. We 
tieheld them^ like the eastern star, restin^f on the temple of 
«ur freedom, on whose portals were Inscribed the words of 
our departed Washington, " Your union must ever be consi- 
dered, as a main prop of your liberty." But if the picture 
of our domestic and foreign relations, be correct, how shall 
we observe every color heightened, and every feature more 
strongly marked, the farther we extend our views ! Through 
every part, we shall trace the bright scenes of glory and 
peace awakening into life, under the anim£.ting touches of 
union ; and the prospect become wild and mournful under 
the wintry influence of discord. We shall read a page in 
the book of futurity, which the hand of union only can tear 
from the records of fate. Let us then direct our attention 
next to the fatal effects of disunion on ourselves, and the hap- 
py consequences, which reason and experience convince us 
must flow from union q( interest, union of sentiment, and 
union of power. 

The American, who «an look forward with calmness to the 
day of separation, must be either more, or less than man.-— 
He must be the victim of ambition or corruption; a deluded 
enthusiast, or a prophet of good, which the most sanguine 
dare not hope, and the keen-eyed statesman cannot foreseen 
3 



IB 

Thenceforward the American eagle shall drop the olive-brancb 
of peace, and grasp only the arrows of war. The hand, which 
writes the declaration of disunion, shall feel the blood curdle 
in its veins ; and the tongue, which reads it to the world, 
shall stiffen in the act. The mountains that divide us, shall 
be " the dark mountains of death," and the streams that 
flow between, like the waters of Egypt, shall be turned into 
blood. 

But terrific as is the picture, which anticipation presently 
let us' gaze upon it, resolutely and calmly. Conceive the 
eventful crisis arrived, when the delegates of America meet 
to sever our confederacy. Unlike the glorious Congress, 
which declared us independent, unlike the equally glorious 
Convention, which framed our Constitution, they would join 
to destroy the fairest edifice, that human hands have ever 
raised. Already is their object attained. With one voice 
they pronounce ua free and independent of each other.* — 
They dash on the earth the Tables of our common alliance ; 
they march in triumph to kindle the flame, that is to con- 
sume the temple of union, and hear with a smile the loud 
crash, as it sinks in ruins. In vain, when the youthful ge- 
nius of America is laid on the altar of separation, may a voice 
from Heaven exclaim, *' Hold ! hold !" In vain, may the 
bleeding image of their country arise and point to her 
wounds ; each will exclaim, in the language of the murder- 
er Macbeth, " Thou canst not say, I did it." In vain, may 
they call up th« spirit of Washington to hallow their rites : 
like the prophet at Endor, he shall look but to blast, and 
speak but to curse. 

I pass over the scenes immediately succeeding the sepa- 

* Were vre to dividB, several different united gorernments would proba- 
bly arise. As our present system is a confederacy of independent states or 
jiRtions, so, we miglit then conceive a union of those independent leagues. 
Congress, now the representative of single, but united states, would thea 
he a Congress of Ambassadors from tlisiinct, but confederated leagues. 
^ow, Legislating for a union of free nations, it would then be the Lawgivei- 
for a union of separate confederacies. This scheme, however, would be 
as visionary, as the national tribunal of Henrj IV. or the indapcndent rc> 
public of the proteitant leaders in France. 



19 

ration. I shall not survey the anxiety of the public mind, 
the interruption of private concerns, or the stagnation of 
foreign and domestic intercourse. I shall not pourtray the 
violence of party, the intrigues of powerful states, the ca- 
bals of individuals, and the efforts of foreign nations. Let 
us suppose the boundaries of the States defined, their con- 
stitutions established, and treaties of alliance formed be- 
tween thena, and with other governments. These new re- 
publics thus arising from the ruins of one, would present the 
most flattering prospects. The gloomy countenance of des- 
pondence has already brightened into hope, and doubt is 
exchanged for the confidence inspired by certainty. 

For a season the affairs of these commonwealths might 
be conducted with moderation and wisdom. Public virtue 
might be the rule of action at home, and public faith towards 
«ach other and the rest of the world. But this could not 
long be the state of independent and neighboring nations. 
While the parent lives, his authority and affection may pre- 
serve the harmony of his family circle ; but when he dies, 
the cessation of personal intercourse produces coldness, and 
difference of interest creates difference of sentiment, per- 
liaps even enmity. The human nature of nations is like that 
of individuals ; for after any great change, the man and the 
people are equally circumspect and moderate. But selfish- 
ness unfortunately too soon succeeds to duty, and the princi- 
ple of ambition to the principle of usefulness. 

In a short time, we should see the confirmation of the 
reasoning already advanced. We should see the fatal pro- 
gress of party spirit, of foreign influence, of local policy, of 
•lashing interests, and of individual intrigue. We should 
look in vain for the principles of union, renovation, and im- 
provement ; in vain for the liberal views and dignified firm- 
ness of a united government ; in vain for the respect and 
konorable alliance of foreign powers. 
. Let us not rest satisfied, however, with this cursory sur. 
Tey, but carefully examine the tendency of interest and 
tmbition. Were w'e assured that these republics would 
always understand and pursue their real welfare, that ther 



Would discard the influence of selfishness aiid locarprejudic^^ 
that they would be ready to acknowledge and change impo- 
litic measures, and to enter into the liberal and more en- 
lightened schemes of their neighbors, we might promise 
ourselves, that they would be permanent and happy. In a 
few years, however, we should behold the operation of a 
principle already mentioned as important : that different yet 
connected interests, ought to be governed by the same hand. 
"Were they independent, the same effects never could arise; 
but when associated, they induce each party to imagine, 
that they have superior claims on the other. From this 
source would spring misunderstanding, contention, perhaps 
even a temporary cessation of intercourse ; and these un- 
propitious events would be favorable to the machinations of 
party, and the intrigues of other nations. 

Let it not be said that a sense of interest would guide 
them. Few nations have ever had the discernment, and 
still fewer the virtue and resolution^ to consult their real 
welfare. In vain, did Demosthenes urge a war against 
Philip ; in vain did Burke dissuade from American taxation; 
and ChaUiam plead, with his own immortal eloquence, for 
conciliatory measures with the colonies. Those casual or 
trifling events, which often decide the fate of human affairs, 
would have a fatal influence.* Diversity of character would 
give additional weight to every cause^ that would militate 
against reconciliation. The resentment or ambition of indi- 
viduals, the interested views of particular classes or esta- 
blishments, and a variety of unforeseen circumstances, would 
darken the prospect. 

To the jealousy of interest, we may add, the jealousy of 
rights ; for the pride of sovereignty is as baneful to nations, 
as the pride of intellect to individuals* The tendency of 
each is to induce disregard or contempt for the claims, the 
power, or the remonstrances of others This spirit is th« 
natural emanation of privileges long enjoyed, of indepen- 

*" So paltry a sum as three pence, in the eyes of a financier; so insigni* 
ficant nn article as tea, in the eyes of a philosopher, have shaken the pillars Or 
a commercial empire, that circled the whole globe."— 5«r*«. 



21 

dence iKiiversaliy acknowledged, and of cotifidence m self^ 
opinion. At a time when this temper would influence legis- 
lative deliberation, few individuals would feel and act up 
to the principle of an eminent statesman, "that timidity 
with regard to the well being of our country, is heroic 
rirtue." Few national councils would be so discerning and 
upright, as to show by (heir actions, that the true glory of a 
people is ever inseparable from their real welfare. The 
consequence of such occurrences might be an appeal to 
arms. There was a time, when the western people were 
ready to march down on New Orleans ; we have seen some 
of the States agitated by insurrection and rebellion ; and 
but lately, the general government resisted by the legisla- 
ture of Pennsylvania. Had the affair of the Chesapeake con- 
cerned two of these republics, or had the minister of one 
undertaken to act, as Genet did under Washington's admin- 
istration, how^ dark must have been the page of history, that 
would have recorded the consequences ! If one State were 
disaffected to the confederacy, of which it formed a part, 
wrhat pencil can paint the scene of contention, intrigue, and 
anxiety that must ensue. These causes have been con- 
sidered in themselves, but when we embrace within our 
view, the cooperating influence of other states' and of foreign 
nations, may we not exclaim with the poet, 

" On the tomb of hope inteired, 
*' Scowls the spectre of despair." 

Attendant on these calamities, would also be the growing 
power of mdividuals, and of military establishments. In 
times of danger, it is not on the wisdom and firmness of le- 
gislatures only, that reliance is placed ; but also on the ta- 
lents and authority of an individual. At that moment, when 
too often the rights of all are governed by a single arm, and 
the voice of one is the collected voice of a natiou, who would 
trust the glory and liberty of his country, but with another 
Washington ? The general then would no longer be the 
private citizen, called out by the free choice of his country- 
nen, but the celebrated warrior pointexl out by the urgenoj 



22 

«f the times. The soldier would «ease to be the farmer or 
mechanic, on a temporary pilgrimage from home, 

" But strutting round, in gaudy blue and reH, 
" Would eat in idleness the poor man's bread." 

The soothing hand of time, which often closes our wounds 
and dries up our tears, could never hold out the golden scep- 
tre of peace. The principles of ruin, like the breath of the 
pestilence, would scatter terror and infection around, and 
though like the rivers of lava, it sprang from one common 
source, would widen, at every moment, the circle of devasta* 
tion. 

Thus should we see the objects of these states not only 
unanswered, but supplanted by others. They had instituted 
the civic festival of peace, and beheld it changed for the tri* 
umph of war. They had crowned the eminent statesman 
with the olive of the citizen, and saw it converted mto the 
laurels of the warrior. The old man, who had walked ex- 
tlltingly in proceBsion, to taste the waters of freedom from 
the fountain of a separate government, beheld the placid 
stream that {lowed from it suddenly sink from his eight, and 
burst forth a daik and turbulent torrent. The young mati, 
whose hand should have delighted in the arts of peace, now 
grasps the glittering sword of battle, and smiles with delight 
at the blast of the trumpet. How soon the citizen would be 
lost in the soldier, and the patriot leader of his countrymen in 
the hero: how often the gleam of arms would startle the peace- 
ful tenant of the cottage, and the trump awake the slumbers 
of infancy, time only could show. War, which in its mildest 
forms, is fraught with ruin and horror, when waged by neigh- 
boring states, thirsting for vengeance, animated by interest, 
or eager for glory, becomes the most cruel scourge in the 
hand of Heaven. Then, it is rapid as the whirlwind, over- 
whelming as the cataract, and merciless as the angel of 
death. Memory still paints the terrific scene to many, who 
witnessed our revolutionary struggle. Friends, who beheld 
the companions of your youth, hewn down by your side in the 
ranks of war, I appeal to you. Parents, who grasped, for 
the last time, the hand of your child, and sent him to fall ii 



25 

the battles of his country, I appeal to you. Sons, who bathi 
ed with your tears the wounds of an aged father, and caught 
the last benediction of paternal love, I appeal to you. Wi- 
dows, whose arms were thrown for the last time, in the ago- 
ny of separation, round the necks of your husbands, I appeal 
to you. Spirits of the dead, whose last prayer was for an 
orphan family, whose dying eyes were raised to Heaven for 
a desolate widow, whose last words were a blessing on them 
and your country, I appeal to you. 

Amid this scene of horrors, when age would excite no pity, 
infancy have no privilege, and beauty plead in vain, where 
would be the order of Cincinnatus? Then would be the fa- 
vorable moment for the accomplishment of those ambitious 
schemes, unjustly attributed to you. But in vain against 
you, did the fire of eloquence flash from the lips of a 
Mirabeau. It was but the lambent flame, that played over 
your heads, and marked you the favorites of heaven. The 
world and your country now freely bestow their confidence 
and veneration, and let me promise for those, who have been 
called in the flower of youth, to share in your rights and ho- 
nors, that they shall never be disgraced. To be Americans 
is our noblest privilege as men, to be members of your body, 
as citizens; and since the sacred duty of our lives shall be to 
deserve well of our country, we shall look for our models 
among you, on whose brows the laurel of the soldier is half 
concealed by the olive wreath of the citizen. To preserve 
and improve the blessings your valor has won, shall be the 
height of our virtuous ambition: and often in the calm shades 
of domestic life, shall we regret, that we did not share in 
your dangers, because you " fought to protect, and conquer- 
ed but to bless." But, though we have not climbed with 
you the steep ascent of freedom, nor waved the banners of 
victory on the ramparts of glory, never shall we forget that 
we also have feelings peculiar to ourselves. Your bosoms 
have never heaved with gratitude, as you looked on the 
champions of our liberty, for you are among the number of 
our deliverers. You have never felt the glow of youthful 
eathiiiiasm) in reflecting on the departed sages of our coun^ 



24 

try, for you and ttiey were fellow laborers in the great tvork 
of our redemption. You have never heard a parent's voice 
awakening the tender mind to the love of America, and to 
the admiration of her statesmen and heroes. Your cradle 
was rocked by the genius of Britain, her banners were th© 
swathing bands of your infancy, and hope already saw you 
armed with the thunder of battle, and the lightning of elo- 
quence, in the cause of Britain. How then shall we ever 
forget, that you were born British subjects, but we American 
citizens ! You have indeed secured these privileges to us, 
and millions yet unborn, we trust, shall inherit them. But 
to that unborn posterity we can say, with mournful exulta- 
tion, "We have beheld the faces of our deliverers, and 
heard the voices of our revolutionary heroes. They were 
our friends, and often for us, has the tear of solicitude or 
of affection bedewed their manly cheeks. They were our 
fathers ; and often have the bright visions of hope been in- 
dulged, while they pictured to themselves, in us, the future 
statesmen and heroes of our country. These arms have 
been fondly thrown, in the caresses of childhood, around their 
necks, and have supported them on the bed of death : these 
hands have borne them to their graves, and inscribed on their 
urns, the record of gratitude and glory." 

If we have seen the jealousy of interest, and the jealousy 
©f power, like resistless torrents, overflowing the fair fields 
•f liberty and happiness, how shall their fatal effects be en- 
creased, when we behold the troubled stream of party spirit 
rushing to swell the flood, and dashing its aspiring waves 
against the lofty rock of national prosperity. 'Tis like the 
evil spirit suggesting terrific dreams to the sleeping Eve ; 
*tis like the same spirit, in the garden of Paradise, persua- 
ding to rebellion against God. Experience has taught us 
that factions become more dangerous the narrower the 
sphere, withia which they operate. Those divisions, there-^ 
fore, which now alarm us, would then be seen to influence 
individual interest, and individual happiness ; for each would 
f(fel a persona^ concern in the principles of his party. Coii,> 



25 

sider the connections of these parties with others in the 
different states, and reflect on the influence of foreign na. 
tions. Heighten the picture still fatther, by embracing with- 
in your view the power and enmity of individuals, the se- 
cret, schemes of interest, unlocked for events at home, and 
political changes abroad. With these circumstances before 
you, conceive an alteration in public opinion. But I draw 
a veil over the scene of insult, animosity, and resentment 
that must ensue ; and proceed to consider the progress and 
influence of ambition. 

Every republic has at times generated this principle, and 
has been compelled to confess, that if combined with talents, 
it is the secret mine, which when it is sprung, buries the 
strongest bulwarks of freedom in ruins. Urged onward by 
this incentive, and supported by the energies of a great 
mind, it is not difficult to deceive or corrupt the unsuspco' 
ting people ; for unhappily, the propensity to prefer interest 
to duty, and appearance to reality, is inherent in natiotal, 
no less than individual character. 

But, whatever be the natural tendency of these causes, 
they are generally concentered by the skill and good 
fortune of some aspiring individual. And where could bright- 
er prospects open to such a man, than in these republics i? 
The principle of emulation is implanted at an early age, and as 
it expands, the chief delight of the youth is to excel, and his 
keenest pang, that which springs from the superiority of 
others. Governed by feeling, he soon dwells with en- 
thusiasm on the page, that records the virtues, the hard- 
ships, and the victories of the hero. Already has he admired 
the brilliant actions of Alcibiades, Caesar, and Cromwell, 
and half wished that he had lived in their days to dispute 
with them the laurels, which they obtained. He reads the 
noble sentiment of the orator, " Vita brevls, sed glorias 
cursus sempiternus ;'^ and would dig his own grave, could 
be dare to hope that his achievements, like those of Sesos- 
tris, would be engraven on columns of brass, or immortalized 
in the romantic narrative of a Quintus Curtius. He soon 
begins to mingle in the world, to practice political bypocr^- 
4 



26 

dy, and to court the favor of the ign6rant and unsusprcious. 
Behold him now on the stage of life. His party chosen, 
he pretends to idolize the people, and speaks of the impre- 
scriptible rights of man. No arts are too mean, no pro- 
fessions too humiliating, no sacrifice of principle, of duty, of 
affection, too great to secure popularity. In a few years he 
enjoys the full confidence of the ruling party ; for his talents 
are too splended not to ensure distinction, and his political 
creed but too orthodox, not to stamp him the advocate of 
the rights and welfare of his country. Early in life, he had 
resolved to stand first in the legislature of the nation, or to be 
the leader of some powerful faction. Now, he aims at sov- 
ereignty- No seat will satisfy him but the throne of Free- 
dom: no footstool but the neck of his country. By a train 
of intrigues and propitious events, the moment at last comes, 
when he shall wield the thunder of a despot, or perish like 
Catiline. And now the blow is struck. Like Brennus, he 
casts his sword into the scale, and his fellow-citizens become 
his slaves. 

Thus have r/j examined the probable consequences of 
disunion, and seen the fatal tendency of the jealousy of in- 
terest, and the jealousy of rights, of party spirit, and of 
ambition. We saw the prospect darken at every step ; 
we walked through the valley of the shadow of death, *' but 
there was 00 rod, no staff to comfort us." We looked and 
beheld the altar of peace shattered by the lightnings of fac- 
tion, and her temple swept by the whirlwind into the chasm 
«f separation. We saw the rock of freedom cleft to its 
base, and sinking mid the billows of disunion : and the indig- 
nant genius of Columbia ascending, never to return. Then 
we beheld the flaming temple of ambition arise, rocked on. 
the stornay waves of faction and discord : we heard the de- 
mon of war rushing in the tempest to inhabit it, amid the 
shrieks of the orphan and the widow : we saw his shrine 
adorned with the gorgeous banner, the beamy helmet, and 
the glittering spear ; whilst on the altar were inscribed ia 
letters of blood, '' One Murder makes a Villain, Millions n 
Hero." 



27 

If these be the fatal effects of disunion, people of Ameri- 
ca, why would you divide ? Shall we forsake the peaceful 
jshores of freedom, to seek the unknown land of separation 
and discord ? Shall the fragile bark of national happiness 
be hurried down the stream of time into the stormy ocean 
of political uncertainty, and not be sunk in the whirlpools of 
faction, or dashed against the rocks of ambition ? Shall the 
traveller dare the massy fragment, which thunders from the 
mountain's brow, amd not be crushed ? And shall we leap 
down the frightful precipice, that overhangs the black gulf 
of national ruin, and hope to escape ? 

I might call your attention now, to the happy consequen- 
ces which may be expected to flow from the continuance of 
union, and contrast them with the gloomy scenes I have just 
described ; but I forbear to rend a veil, which the hand of 
time will remove. You have already drawn the lovely pic- 
ture, brightening under the creative pencil of ancy, and 
softened by the mellow touches of feeling. And, moreover) 
anticipation could shed but a feeble gleam over a prospect, 
on which the unfolding glories of our future union, will beam 
with a splendor, hitherto unrivalled in the history of man.* 
But though we decline a Bwrrey fit useful and gratifying, 
may we not dwell on our own ^drant^ea, and challenge the 
world to produce a nation so emim^.atly favored ? To what 
page of history can the eye be turned, nbich will not en^ 
hance, on a comparison, our national pride '^nd the true glory 
of our country ? Shall we fear an equal in the States of 
Greece, or in the Commonwealth of Rome .■' In the Lycian 
Confederacy, er the Achsan League .*' In the Cantons of 

* Th9<4bllowiDg picture of America from tbe pen of the great Burke, is 
too flattering and appropriate to be omitted. " Nothing, in the history of 
mankind, is like their progress. For my part, I never cast an eye on their 
flourishing commerce, and their cultivated and commodioui life, but they 
seem to me rather ancient nations grown to perfection, through a long 
series of fortunate events, and a train of successful industry, accumulating 
wealth in many centuries, than the Colonies of yesterday, than a set of 
jniserable outcasts a few years ago, not so much sent as thrown out on the 
bleak and barren shore «f a degolat« wilderness, three thousand milei^frea 
«11 civilized iatercourse^*' 



28 

Switzerland, or the United Provinces ? Theirs was but the 
twilight of freedom, a feeble transcript of what you possess. 
Where then, but in our native land, shall we find this original 
of all that is most honorable and useful to mankind ? Where 
is the freedom of the citizen the basis, and his happiness 
the object of the constitution ? And where are legislators 
the choice of the people, and the laws enacted solely to 
promote their welfare ? It is in America. Where are 
the rights of man revered, the privileges of the citizen se- 
cured, and the claims of the stranger acknowledged and en- 
forced ? Where does the victim of foreign persecution find 
an eminence, on which the ark of his hopes may rest ? It is 
in America. Where can we look for a government so con- 
sistent with the liberty, and so adequate to the wants of 
the people ."* So comprehensive, and yet so minute .'' So 
permanent in its principles, and yet so versatile in their 
application .'' Where shall we find a country so various in 
its productions, and so abundant in its resources : so admi- 
rably adapted for commerce with the whole world, and yet, 
so capable of living within itself ; daily becoming more pow- 
erful and happy at home, more respectable and necessary 
abroad ? And where do we meet with a nation more libe- 
ral, generous, anJ enlightened ? mere calm and intrepid in 
war .^ more dignified and polished in peace .'' more moder- 
ate and grateful in prosperity ? more resolute and patient 
in iidversity ? Where — a nation, whose leading characters 
have been more distinguished for the bold and energetic 
virtues of public life, and the mild and engaging qualities, 
which endear us in retiremnit ? whose heroes, and whose 
statesmen have reOected brighter honor on their country, 
by the corapreherjive depln of their understanding, the 
versatility of their genius, and the masterly powers of their 
eloquence .'' 

Friendsj and Fdlow -Citizens — Were we assembled this 
day merely to commemorate the glorious aera, of which it 
is tho anniversary, .nd to mdulge our national e.ithusiasm, 
by d veiling on tiic great events of our Revolation, still 
would our feelings be proud and enviable ijideed. But the 



29 

^ark clouds of adversity have passed away, and the sun- 
shine of peace streams in full splendor on our bappy land. 
Henceforth, the toils of the soldier, and the struggiea of our 
country, shall be contrasted with the blessings we enjoy : 
the patriot and hero of former times may sleep unncticed, 
but not unbelored : and even the sacred virtues of Wash- 
ington may be rarely heard to enforce the reasoning, and ^ 
heighten the eloquence of the orator. Henceforth let the 
page of history b» the record of their usefulness and renown; 
whilst you consult the future interests of yourselves, of pos- 
terity, and of the world. 

Under impressions, so awful and interesting, reflect, 
Americans, on these duties, and how you may best dis- 
charge them. Know then, that security or corruption in the 
people, and ambition in the rulers, are the bane of republi- 
can governments. Know that frem each of you flows the 
tributary stream of power and influence, and that public au- 
thority and public opinion must be the same, as the fountain ^• 
from which they spring. Know that the perfection and hap- V 
piness of a nation depend on the virtues of its citizens, and 
that each contributes to the purity or corruption, the misery ' 
or felicity of his country. Can you trace the effect of every 
lineament and color, in giving beauty and grace to the land- -f 
scape .'' Can you mark the swelling of every wave on the r 
ruffled surface of the ocean; and the splendor of every star, i- 
whose mingled light forms the grandeur and magnificence of f_ 
Heaven ? And shall the citizen be free from the reproaches '. 
<jf his country and of future generations, merely because he 
is not the tyrant, the traitor, or the rebel ? Shall he hope 
to escape the avenging arm of conscience, if his example or 
tis principles have roused the indignation of the virtuous and 
wise ."* Guard then, against that fatal security, which origi- 
nates in private indifference, and that universal corruption, 
whici is but the combined influence of indivi.ials. Guard 
against thai party spirit, which makes the freeman a si ve, 
and the citizen a hirt-Hi;g . which arms your country against 
liersftif, . . ' '';ecomes too often the means o' aggrandizement 
to itui iurbuieat uod ambitious. Guard against that spirit of 



junovatiou, which looks upon antiquity as the stamp of infa- 
my, and novelty as the test of usefulness and truth r which 
holds nothing sacred, no, not even the records of eternal 
goodness, not the memory of Washington, not the Constitu- 
tion of our country. Guard against ingratitude to the illus- 
trious characters of our nation ; for coldness and neglect to 
them, will cloud the bright dawn of youthful talents and pa- 
triotism. Your hands must weave the wreath of their re- 
nown, your hands must build the triumphal arch of their glo- 
ry, and open to them the gates of immortality. Above all, 
admire and revere the great father of our country, whose 
heart was the sanctuary of virtue, and his mind the temple 
of wisdom. Love and venerate him, as the first of men; 
and know, Americans, that the world envy us that man, 
more than our freedom and happiness; for all have heard 
the name of Washington; but who, except Americans, eaa 
conceive the blessings, which Americans enjoy! 

Let not the clamors of faction deafen you to the voice of 
your country, nor the duties of the citizen yield to the in 
terest of the individual. Let not the dissensions of party' 
cherish the spirit of ambition, by substituting the principles ' 
of one for tl:e priiicijdes of all: nor lead to political idolatry, 
and thence to despotism, by converting (he representative 
of the people's power, into the master ofl'ne people's rights. 
Imitate, therefore, your ancestors, who taught by their ex- 
ample, that death is the only equivalent for freedom, and 
that virtue and moderation, can alone ensure union 
in war, and prosperity in peace. But, if you neglect 
the salutary counsels of wisdom and experience, already 
may you tremble at the ruin, that awaits you. Think not 
that you can never become a corrupt people, the mercena^, 
ries of a demagogue, or the slaves of a tyrant. Rome was 
once powerful, happy, and free. Had the Roman their 
been told, that the charter of her freedom, and the crown 
of her glory, should be trampled in the dust, by the unhal- 
lowed foot of ambition, how would his eye have flashed with 
indignation, and the sword of vengeance have glisteited in 
the descending hand of the incensed patriot ? Whilst, ho\i(- 



\ 



31 

ever, you consult your own interests, think of -the glory and 
usefulness of your forefathers ; think of the ties, which bind 
you to your descendants, and of the misery and degradation 
of the mass of mankind. Think of what you owe to them, and 
know that your duties are extensive as the world, commen- 
surate with the privileges of human nature, and sanctified 
by the warnings and instructions of the Christian Scriptures. 
They have claims, which you cannot, you dare not disregard. 
They entreat you in the pathetic eloquence of persuasion : 
they urge you in the forcible language of remonstrance : 
they adjure you in the accents of despair, by the vengeance 
of Heaven, and the curses of posterity, not to betray so 
sacred a charge. To you are entrusted not merely the 
liberty and glory of America, but the rights of man, and the 
welfare of future ages. You alone enjoy genuine happi- 
ness, and genuine freedom ; and you are the chosen race, 
whose example shall yet arouse the sleeping genius of na- 
tions, to unsheath the sword of reformation, and grasp the 
giant sceptre of independence. Think not, then, that we 
are to be the only great and independent nation in America. 
Rather behold with the keen eye of anticipation, new revo- 
lutions taking place, other nations springing to light, and 
knowledge and freedom universally diffused. Behold the 
submissive spirit of the Colony, then exchanged for the bold 
and enterprising character of an independent people. Behold 
the white sails of commerce swelling in every breeze, and 
reflected from every wave; the gilded spire, the marble 
portico, and the splendid edifice, rising in the desert, and 
brighteniug amid the gloom of surrounding woods. Behold 
the vast surface of South America, now one boundless ex- 
panse of hills and forests, then diversified with flourishing ci- 
ties and cultivated plains. Behold the spirit of improve- 
ment gradually advancing from the shores of the ocean, le- 
velling the woods, clearing the vallies, and scattering the 
golden harvest, and the purple fruits of autumn, over the 
sides and summits of the mountains. Hear the confused 
noise of the busy multitude, gathering on the shore, and roll- 
ing along the Aioazon and La l^lata, its deepenin|; echo<^ 



32 

even to the cliffs and vallies of the Andes. Hear the voice 
of religion hymning the praise of God in the wilderness, and 
the cottager joining in the general anthem of praise and gra- 
titude. Hear the midnight song of the marlner^ resounding 
on every wave ; and the rustic strains of the shepherd, float- 
ing in the breeze, on a thou&and hills. Hear poetry describe 
the greatness and benevolence of God, in the sublimity and 
beauty of this New World : and eloquence plead for the 
rights of man, the glory of nations, and the happiness of uni- 
versal nature. 

Under obligations so sacred, with prospects so bright, can 
you, Americans, be deaf to the voice of posterity, and of 
mankind .'' Can you, as individuals, but be virtuous, when all 
must suffer for the vices and follies of one .'' Can you, as 
fellow citizens, be otherwise than united, whilst you behoi^ 
the gigantic genius of faction, grasping the pillars of free* 
erm, and preparing to shake the temple of national happiness 
into ruins • Can you, as the only free and independent na- 
tion on earth, be regardless of the admonitions of experi- 
ence, the voice of Heaven, the rights of your descendants, 
and the claims of future ages ? — Great, happy, and free, 
what wish would you form ? what prayer could you utter ? 
What wish ? but that the world may yet taste the blessings, 
which Americans enjoy : What prayer .'' but that ours may 
be the last republic on earth, or the centre of UNIVERSAL 
KNOWLEDGE, UNIVERSAL HAPPINESS, ANQ 
UNIVERSAL FREEDOM. 



SPEECH 

OP 

THOMAS SMITH GRIMKE, 

ONE OF THE SENATORS 

FROM ST. PHILIP'S AND ST. MICHAEL'S, 

DELIVERED 
IN THE SENATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

In December, 1828, 

DURING THE DEBATE 

ON SUNDRY RESOLUTIONS, 
Of the Senate and House of Representatives, 

ISitnpttiins tj^c tariff. 



'^ I beg pardon of this house for having taken up more time, than came 

to my share ; and I thank them for the patience and polite attention, with 

which I have been heard. If I shall be in a minority, I shall have those 

painful sensations, which arise from a conviction of being overpowered ifl 

a good cat,\}se."— Patrick Henry. 



(ftlMTBO fil W. RILET, 110 CHVnOH-STREET. 



TO THE 
PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Fellow Citizensy 

I TRUST that I may, without offence and without sus- 
picion of disrespect, dedicate to you the following pages. — 
They contain substantially the sentiments, delivered at the 
last session of the Legislature, on the questions, arising out 
of the passage of the Tariff bill of 1828. It is the privilege 
of the minority, if that minority consist of but one member, 
to be heard in your halls of Legislation; provided he speaks 
with the seriousness and propriety, which become the 
place, the audience and the subject. It is equally the pri- 
vilege of the minority among the people, though but the 
thousandth part of them, to be heard through the press. — 
And suffer me to remark, that the People of this Country 
can never value too highly, on all great questions, the oppo- 
sition of a minority, as long as it is constitutional in its forms 
and character, dignified, temperate and respectful in its 
manner, pure and patriotic in its objects. Such a minority 
is an inestimable blessing in a free, enlightened, represen- 
tative government, as affording to the majority an irreproach- 
able example of wisdom and moderation, of independence 
and firmness, of public spirit and public virtue. 

I cannot be too grateful for the kindness and attention, 
with which I was favored by the Senate, during a long, com- 
plex and laborious examination of the great subject of Con- 
stitutional Law and National Policy, which was then before 
them. I present to you, substantially (though with many 
additions and alterations) what was then delivered: and, if it 
were the last act of my life, I should feel, whatever may be 
its reception, that I had not done my duty to my country, if 
I had not laid before you these sentiments. I know that 
they have been dictated by the love of peace and order, 



of sober-minded, regulated liberty, of free, rational, tem- 
perate discussion. I do conscientiously believe them to be 
perfectly consistent with the mutual rights and interests of 
the States and of the Union : with the true dignity and au- 
thority of local as well as general Sovereignty. If I err, I 
have the satisfaction of knowing, that I do so honestly, after 
a faithful and diligeut examination of the subject. If I err, I 
have also the satisfaction of knowing, that although I differ 
from some of the wise and good of this day, yet that the ma- 
jority of them advocate the same opinions. If I err, I have 
the farther satisfaction of knowing, that the wise and the 
good, of a nobler, and better, and wiser age, the age of 1789, 
sanctioned by their opinions and acts, the sentiments which 
I have attempted to vindicate. I appeal then from Carolina 
as she is, excited, suspicious, full of fears and gloomy 
thoughts, to Carolina as she was, from 1789 to the end of 
Mr. Monroe's administration, free from passion, prejudice, 
and apprehension. I appeal from Carolina, in 1828, a judge 
in her oion case, to Carolina from 1789 to 1824, a judge in 
the case of her sister States. I appeal from Carolina, de- 
nying, and almost ready to resist the authority of the general 
government, to Carolina, such as she was, when she took no 
part ia the sentiments aud conduct of Virginia in 1798, as to 
the Alien and Sedition Laws : when she withheld her ap- 
probation from Pennsylvania, enacting a law, command- 
ing and empowering the Governor to icsist the executioa of 
a Judgment rendered by a Court of the Union ; when she 
rejected the opinion, maintained by many in New England, 
that the Embargo of 1808, was unconstitutional : when she 
frowned on the doctrine of Connecticut and Massachusetts, 
in 1812, that the State Executive, not the President, was 
to judge, whether the Constitution authorised a call on the 
Militia in time of war: when, in 1821, (yVcls p. 69,) she re- 
jected the amendment proposed by Pennsylvania, to prohibit 
Congress from establishing the Bank of the United States, 
or its offices, out of the District of Columbia : and when in 
lh24, (Acts p 83) she pronounced, by the unanimous vote 
of her Legislature, that the Administration of James Mon* 



roe, so conspicuous for internal improvements and the protective 
sifstem, had been truly republican, wise, virtuous and success- 
ful. I appeal from Carolina, agitated and alarmed, suffer- 
ing and dissatisfied, acting almost alone, to the same Caro- 
lina, when she disapproved, in common with the vast major- 
ity of the People and States of the Union, the remonstrances 
and menaces of discontented minorities. 

I feel that my own opinions are worth nothing, beyond the 
principles and reasonings, with which I have endeavored to 
sustain them. I trust then I shall be pardoned for enforcing 
them, by those of George Washington and Patrick Henry, 
the former, equally admirable in patriotism and judgment, 
the latter, originally the Great Antagonist of the Constitu- 
tion. Washington, in his Farewell Address, thus speaks, 

" The unity of government which constitutes you one 
people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a 
main pillar in the edifice of your real independence ; the 
support of your tranquility at home: your peace abroad; of 
your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty, which 
you so highly prize. But, as it is easy to foresee that, from 
different causes and from different quarters, much pains will 
be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds 
the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political 
fortress, against which the batteries of internal and external 
enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often cov- 
ertly and insidiously) directed ; it is of infinite nioment, that 
you should properly estimate the immense value of your 
national union to your collective and individual happiness ; 
that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immoveable 
attachment to it ; accustoming yourselves to think and speak 
of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; 
watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety ; discoun- 
tenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in 
any event, be abandoned ; and indignantly frowning upon the 
first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our coun- 
try Jrom the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties, which now link to- 
gether the various parts. ^^ 

"This government, the offspring of your choice uninflu- 
enced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and ma- 
ture deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the 
distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and 
<iontaining within itself a provision for its own amendment, 
has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Res- 



6 

pect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence 
in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental max- 
ims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is 
the right of the people to make and to alter their constitu- 
tions of government. But the constitution which at aay time 
exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the 
whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very 
idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish 
government, pre-supposes the duty of every individual to 
obey the established government." 

Patrick Henry, in his last speech against the Constitu- 
tion, had said, ill 1798, (Wirt's Life, p. 297,) " If I shall 
be in the minority, I shall have those painful sensations, 
which arise from the conviction of being overpowered in 
a good cause. Yet I will be a peaceable citizen. My 
head, my hand, and my heart shall be free to retrieve the 
loss of liberty, and remove the defects of that system, in a 
constitutional way. I wish not to go to violence ; but will 
wait with hopes, that the spirit, which predominated in the 
Ilevclution, is not yet gone, nor the cause of those who are 
attached to the Revolution yet lost. I shall, therefore, pa- 
tiently wait, in expectation of seeing that government 
changed, so as to be compatible with the safety, liberty and 
liapp'neps of the People." 

What Patrick Henry meant by this " Constitutional way," 
is explained in his Speech to the People, at the election in 
1798; for, although he was then nearly sixty-three, he 
offered himself as a candidate for the House of Delegates ; 
because he believed the sentiments and conduct of his own 
Virginia, in relation to the Alien and Sedition Laws, to be 
unconstitutional, and dangerous. He said to the People, 

" Tiiat the late proceedings of the Virginia Assembly had 
filled him with apprehensions and alarm ^ that they had 
planted thorns upon his pillow; that they had drawn him 
from that happy retirement, which it had pleased a bounti- 
ful Providence to bestow, and in which he had hoped to 
pass, in quiet, the remainder of his days; that the State had 
quitted the sphere, in which she had been placed by the 
constitution ; and in daring to pronounce upon the validity 
of federal laws, had gone out of her jurisdiction in a manner 
not warranted by any authority, and in the highest degree 
alarming to every con-ilerate man; that such opposition, 



on the part of Virginia, to the acts of the general govern- 
ment, must beget their enforcement by military power ; 
that this would probably produce civil war ; civil war, for- 
eign alliances ; and that foreign alliances must necessarily 
end in subjugation to the powers called in." — " Mr. Henry, 
proceeding in his address to the people, asked, "whether 
the county of Charlotte would have any authority to dispute 
an obedience to the laws of Virginia ; and he pronounced 
Virginia to be to the union, what the county of Charlotte 
was to her. Having denied ihe right of a state to decide 
upon the constitutionality of federal laws, he added, that 
perhaps it might be necessary to say something of the merits 
of the laws in question. His private opinion was, that they 
were '■^ good and proper.'''' But, whatever, might he their 
merits, it belonged to the people, who held the reins over 
the head of congress, and to them alone, to say whether they 
were acceptable or otherwise, to Virginians ; and that this 
must be done by way oj petition. That congress were as 
much our representatives as the assembly, and had as good 
a right to our confidence. He had seen, with regret, the 
unlimited power over the purse and sword consigned to the 
general government ; but that he had been overruled, and 
it was now necessary to submit to the constitutional exercise 
of that power. " If," said he, " I am asked what is to be 
done, when a people feel themselves intolerably oppressed, 
my answer is ready : — Overturn the government. But do 
not, I beseech you, carry matters to this length, without 
provocation. "Wait at least until scwe infringement is made 
upon your rights, and which cannot otherwise be redressed ; 
for if ever you recur to another change, you may bid adieu 
for ever to representative government. You can never 
exchange the present government, but for a m^onarchy." — 
Wirfs Life of Henry, pp. 393-4-5. 

I hope, I do not err In the opinion, that justice to myself 
and to the subject, renders it proper, that I should publish 
along with the Remarks at the last Session, my Protest 
against the Preamble and Resolutions introduced by Dr. 
Ramsay, at the Sessioa of 1827; and the Resolutions offered 
by me on the 12th of December last. I need hardly say, 
that if the opinions expressed in these, are errors, it is my 
misfortune to hold them still, with a more resolute convic- 
tion, that they are sober and valuable truths. If they are 
ecrorS) I know, that as I hare adopted them honestly, so I 



6 

adhere to them steadily, and expose them freely and candid- 
ly. If they are errors, suffer me to enjoy the consolation of 
believing, that they may serve as beacons to warn you against 
such heresies But, if they are truths, I shall have the sa- 
tisfaction of thinking, that I shall not have served my country 
in vain, if my public life should have brought forth no other 
fruit than these pages. Pardon my simplicity, perhaps I 
might say my presumption, in believing that 1 can render 
any service, in this most interesting and important matter. 
But it is the cause of our country ; and therefore a holy and 
awful cause. But however unworthy, I hope that I have at 
least afforded an example of calm, respectful, temperate 
discussion, untainted by sarcasm and ridicule, undefiled by 
prejudice, jealousy and suspicion, unpolluted by thrdats afld 
denunciations, by passion and bitterness. 

Your Fellow CitizeH) 

And Servant, 

THOMAS S. GRIMKk. 

Charleston, 2d Mv. 1829 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 
tN THE SENATE. 

Monday, December 11 th, 1827. 

Mr. Grimke, handed in the following Protest, which was 
ordered to be entered at length on the Journal. 

" Protest of Thomas S. Grimke, one of the Senators from 
St. Philip's and St. Michael's. 

Against the Report and Resolutions of the Special Com- 
mittee, whereof Dr. Ramsay was Chairman, appointed 27th 
Nov. 1827, which Report and Resclutions were referred to 
the Committee of the Whole, and were discussed on Monday, 
Tuesday and Wednesday, the lOth, II th and 12th of De- 
cember, and having been reported, were adopted with an 
amendment to the second offered by Mr. Heniy Deas, on 
the day last mentioned. 

With regard to the report itself, I protest against it, 
considered as a preamble to the Resolutions, for the reasons 
for which I protest against the Resolutions themselves. 

The first Resolution reads thus : 

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States is a 
compact between the people ©f the different States with 
each other, as separate and independent sovereignties ; and 
that for any violation of the letter or spirit of that compact 
by the Congress of the United States, it is not only the right 
of the people, but of the Legislature, who represent ihem, 
to every extent not limited, to remonstrate against violations 
of the fundamental compact. 

I protest against the foregoing resolution, for the following 
reasons. 

1st. I consider it immaterial, what circumstances gave 
rise to the present Constitution, in what mode it was called 
into being, or in what manner officers under that constitution 
are appointed, if the powers and the duties of the government, 
when constituted are national and not federative ; if the laws 
enacted by it act upon the people of tl/e Union, as one pea- 
phy and not upon the States, as separate and independent 
sovereignties, combiaed in a league of friendship (art. confed. 
art. 3d.) The present constitution at its commencement, 
«' We the People, &c." compared with the articles of con- 
federation, and with the declaration of independence, asserts 
itself to be the act of the People of the Union, and not of tb* 
6 



ie 

peeple of each of the thirteen United States. I cannot, there- 
fore, regard the Constitution as a compact, subsisting and 
operating between the people of the different States, wi'-h 
each other, as separate and independent sovereignties, but 
as a compact subsisting between and operating upon the peo- 
ple of one Nation. 

2d1y. .1 protest also against the latter part of the resolu- 
tion ; because whilst 1 admit that it is the right of the people 
to remonstrate, I admit it is their right, only as the people 
of the Union. I cannot admit that the people of a State, as 
such, have the right of remonstrance ; because I deny that 
a State, or the people of a State, as such, stand in such a 
relation to the Union, as to possess the right of remonstrance 
against the acts of a sovernment, independent of such state 
and such people, neither governing them, nor responsible to 
them. As then, the people of the State, as such, have not 
this I ight, it follows conclusively that their Legislature can- 
not possess a power, which their constituents have not. 
Besides remonstrance is an appropriate act of political, not 
of legislative sovereignty : and as the General Assembly have 
only a legislative capacity under the Constitution of South- 
Carolina, they cannot do a political act, founded on a sup- 
posed political relation between them and Congress, when 
none such exists. 

The second Resolution is as follows : 

Resolved, 'i hat the Acts of Congress passed in 1816, 1820, 
and 1824, known by the name of the TarilT Laws, so far aa 
they were intended to encourage manufactures, under the 
power to lay imposts, are violations of the Constitution in 
its spirit, and ought to be repealed. 

I protest against the foregoing resolution for the following 
reasons. 

1st. Congress has power to regulate Commerce. Manu- 
factures in the United States have been the natural growth 
of a prosperous commerce. They are inseparably allied. 
It is impossible to regulate commerce without having a 
knowledge of, and a view to manufactures, at home. Duties 
must depress or encourage manufactures, according as they 
arc laid with a view to, or under a disregard of manufac- 
tures. Congress, therefore, having the power, is bound to 
reguiiite trade, so as to promote them ; if it should appear 
to the iialional legislature, to be for the general welfare ; 
and of this, as a question of expediency, they are the only 
judges. 

2(i\y. Because the practice of the government has been 
eonformable to this construction of the Constitulrion, as ap- 
pears especially by the act of 20th July, 1789, (Ist vol. edit. 



11 

1815, L. U. S. page 2,) the preamble to which states these 
objects of the duty thereby laid, 1st to support government. 
2dly, to pay debts, and 3dly, "/or the encouragement and 
protection of manufactures :" also by all the acts, which lay 
discriminating duties in favor of vessels, built in the United 
States, and which can have no other effect, than to encou- 
rage all the manufactures, upon which ship building de- 
pends ; also by the various acts, which lay discriminating 
duties in favor of spirits distilled at home, even {vom foreign 
materials: also by the acts of 1816, and 1820, almost unan- 
inously approved throughout the Union. 

3dly. Because I cannot reconcile, consistently with the 
rlignity, honor, candor, and good sense of South Carolina, 
the above resolution, with the vote of thanks to President 
Monroe, passed in Dec. 1824, (p. 83,) whereby the Legis- 
lature, by a joint resolution, declared, that his administra- 
tion had been truly republican^ idse, virtuous and successful : 
whereas, if the above resolution be correct in principle, 
his administration was the very reverse of truly republican, 
wise, virtuous and successful. 

The third Resolution reads as follows : 

Resolved^ That Congress have no power to construct roads 
and canals, in the States, with or without the assent of the 
States in whose limits those improvements are made : the 
authority of Congress extending no farther than to pass the 
necessary and proper laws to carry into execution their 
enumerated powers. 

I protest against the foregoing resolution for the follow- 
ing reasons : 

1st. As to roads. If the word " establish" signifies sim- 
ply to designate, then the three last words " and post roads," 
mean nothing; because the power to designate post offices 
contains in itself the power to designate post roads, for af- 
ter fixing the offices, the determining of the route would be 
a mere matter of arrangement with the mail contractor. — 
But the word establish cannot signify merely to designate. 
This expression implies the pre-existence of the thing desig- 
nated. Whereas, the clause does not refer to offices and 
roads already existing. 

Besides, the meaning of the word, in other parts of the 
Constitution, is, " to make, to create ;" and not simply to 
point out or select, (Art. 1, § 8 cl. 4,) " to establish a uni- 
form rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject 
of bankruptcies." (Art. 3, § 1.) " The judicial power 
shall be vested m one supreme court, and in such inferior 
courts, as congress may, from time to time, ordain and es- 
tablish ;" " to ^tablish justice," in the preamble mean? 



!2 

strictly neither to create nor to designate, but to establish 
justice, by creating national instead of state tribunals for its 
administration. 

2d\y. As to roads and canals. It appears to me, that there 
js a clear and marked distinction, between the specific grant 
of a separate^ substantive power : and the necessary grant of a 
portion of the same power, as incidental to another separate, 
substantive power, specifically granted. Thus the power 
to create corporations would have enabled congress te diar- 
ter banks all over the union, without regard to the finamial 
department of the government ; but the powers to borrow 
money, and to lay and collect taxes and duties, only confer 
authority to incorporate a bank for the express purpose oi 
*' conducing to the successful conducting of the national 
finances," and " of facilitating the obtaining of loans for the 
use of the government in sudden emergencies." A specific 
power to construct roads and canals, granted substantively 
and separately, would have authorised their establishment 
all over the union, without regard to any one of the enumera- 
ted powers. But as the clause now stands, no road or canal 
can be constructed, except as incidental to some one specific 
power, and with a view to the end or object of that power. 
If the general power to construct roads and canals had been 
given separately, the construction of them would have been 
in the nature of an end : but given as it now is incidentally 
such construction is in the nature of means. 

The fourth Resolution reads thus : 

Resolved^ i'hat the American Colonization Society is not 
an object of national interest, and that congress has no power 
in any way to patronize or direct appropriations for the be* 
nefit of this or any other society. 

I protest against the preceding resolution because, al-' 
though I freely concede that the American Colonization So- 
ciety is not an object of national concern, yet I cannot admit 
the universal prmciple asserted by the resolution, that no 
other society can be an object of national interest. If the 
resolution bad been limited to the A. C. S. I should have 
voted for it, but I cannot adopt it, as it now stands ; because 
I am satisfied that many societies may exist, whose objects 
tvould be so intimately connected with some of the specific, 
enumerated powers, that congress would have a clear right 
and would be under a strong obligation to encourage them. 

The fifth Resolution reads thus : 

Resolced, That our senators in congress be instructed, 
and our representatives requested to continue to oppose 
every increase of the tariff, with a view to protect domestic 
manufactures and all appropriations to the purpose of inter- 



13 

nal improvements of the United States, and all appropria- 
tions in favor of the Colonization Society, or the patronage 
of the same, either directly or indirectly by the general 
government. 

I protest against the whole of the above resolution (ex- 
cept the clause as to the Colonization Society) for the rea- 
sons already given. I also object to the words "• be in- 
structed" as asserting the right to instruct the senators from 
S. C. in the congress of the U. S. as distinguished from the 
representatives. I cannot admit this principle, in regard 
to the senators. The Legislature of the State of South- 
Carolina, under the Constitution of the United States, has 
merely the naked powe^ of appointment. Now I take it to be 
a fundamental rule of all law, whether civil or political, that 
the appointing power cannot qualify its act, either at the 
time of execution, or at any subsequent period, unless such 
a right be conferred by the original instrument, creating 
the power of appointment. And this principle is applicable 
with tenfold force, to the case of a delegated power of ap- 
pointment ; as in the case of the legislature^ when executing 
the delegated authority to choose a senator. 

It is unnecessary to say any thing on the subject of the 
sixth resolution, requiring the Governor to forward copies 
to our senators, &c. because I acquiesce in it as a correct 
measure, the majority having adopted the resolutions. 

For the reasons above stated, I protest against the fi'e 
resolutions above copied. 

(Signed) THOS. S. GRIMKF- 



RESOLUTIONS 

Submitted to tha Senate by Thomas S. Grimke^ 
one of the M^m>bers from St. Philip^s and St. 
MichaeVs^ i2th December, 1828. 

JJcsofocd, That South-Carolina regards the Union of these 
States, as indispensible to tht^ir Liberty a»d Independence, 
their Peace, Prosperity, and Improvement. 

Resolved^ That South-Carolina, pledges to her sister States 
and to the Union, her Life, her Fortune, and her sacred Hon- 
our, for the maintenance of the Coastitutional compact which 
hin^s them together. 



14 

Iteiolved, That South-Caroliaa acknovvlerlges the impor- 
tance and necessity of adhering to cotennporaneous ex- 
positions of the Constitution, especially when they have been 
repeatedly acted upon since by the different departments of 
thft National Government, and have been acquiesced in by 
the great majority of the State Governments and of the Peo- 
ple. 

Resolved, That, according to the true theory and sound, 
practical interpretation of the Constitution of this State, all 
ordinary cases of neglect of duty, of abuse of power and of 
wurpation of power, by any of the departments of Gov«rn- 
raent or by any public officer, are amply provided for by the 
remedies of impeachment, indictment, and elective franchise, 
and the Courts of Justice. 

Resolved, That the people of this State and the Convention, 
which formed the Constitution of South-Carolina, regarded 
the exercise by the Legislature of power not granted., as a case 
of ordinary breach of duty, and provided against it through 
the elective franchise, and especially through the judicial 
4]epartment. 

Resolved, That, according to the sound construction of the 
(Constitution of this State, illustrated, sustained and enforced 
by a cotemporaneous exposition; by repeated judgments of 
Our Courts, declaring Acts of Assembly to be void ; by the 
♦purse of our Legislature in pursuance of said judgments ; 
avd by the acquiescence of the people of this State for near- 
lyforty years, the judiciary is the proper, peculiar, and only 
tribunal for deciding, in the last resort, as to merely local 
anti domestic questions, on the Constitutionality of laws. 

Iksolved, That this Constitutional jurisdiction, thus estab- 
lished and approved, cannot be lawfully withdrawn from the 
Courts, but by an amendment of the Constitution, and that it 
doth lot become the dignity, good sense, and discretion of the 
Legislature, to impeach or call in question the sufficiency of 
this tribunal, in point of wisdom and virtue, patriotism and 
independijnce, talents and learning. 

Resolvec^ That according to the true theory and sound 
practical in\erpretation of the Constitution of these United 
Statesjiall trdinary cases of neglect of duty, of abuse of 
power, and ot usurpation of power by any of the departments 
of the National Government, or by any of its officers, are 
amply provided for by the remedies of impeachment, the 
Supreme Court, ^nd the Elective Franchise. 

Resolved, That the Convention, which formed the Consti- 
tution of the Union, the Legislatures of the States, the Con- 
ventions of the different States, and the people throughout 
the Union, regarded the exercise by the State and Mttiotwl 



15 

Legislatures oj pcicer not granted y as a case of ordtnan/ breach 
of duty, ami provided against it, through the Presidential 
veto, the Elective Franchise, and the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

Resolved^ That, according to the letter and spirit, and to 
the sound construction, both practical and theoretical, of the 
National Compact, illustrated, sustained and enforced by co- 
temporaneous exposition; by repeated judgments of the Su- 
preme Court, declaring Acts both of the State and National 
Legislature to be void ; by the course of our Legislative 
proceedings, both in Congress and in the State Assemblies, 
in pursuance of said judgments ; and by the acquiescence of 
the great majority of the State Tribunals, of the State Go- 
vernments, and of the people throughout the Union ; the 
Supreme Court is the proper, and peculiar, and only tribunal, 
having authority to decide in the last resort, upon the Con- 
stitutionality of the Acts of the General or State Govern- 
ments. 

Resolved, That this Constitutional Jurisdiction thus estab- 
lished and approved, cannot be lawfully withdrawn from that 
Court, but by an amendment of the National Compact ; 
and that it doth not become the dignity, good sense and dis- 
cretion of the Legislature, to impeach or call in question the 
sufficiency of this tribunal, in point of wisdom and virtue, 
patriotism and independence, talents and learning. 

Resolved, That if the Tariff Act of 1828, be unconstitution- 
al, the Supreme Court of these United States, is the only tri- 
bunal known to their Constitution, having jurisdiction to de- 
cide on the validity of that law ; inasmuch as a refusal to 
comply with that law would constitute a case, arising under 
a law of Congress, and under the 2d Section of the 3d Article 
of the Constitution of the Union. 

Resolved, That it is the duty of the State of South-Caroli- 
na, and that it well becomes her dignity, wisdom and mode- 
TatioD, her love of peace, order and good feeling, to desire, 
and if it be necessary, to seek in the spirit of his Excellen- 
cy's Message of the 25th of November last, the judgment 
of the proper Courts of Justice, on the question, whether 
the Tariff Act of 1828, be Constitutional or not. 

Resolved, That a palpable breach of the Constitution con- 
sists in the plain, simple affirmation of that, which is denied, 
or in the like negation of that, which is affirmed in the Con- 
stitution ; and cannot be submitted to any honest man of' 
good sense, without his determining at once the question. 

Resolved, That every other case of alleged violation of 
the National Compact, opens a fair field for honest differ- 
ence of opinion :_that every such case is emphatically n 



16 

proper subject for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court : 
and that whatever may be tb*- opinion of the people or Le- 
gisladir.' (»f a State, thr^> are bound in duly, if they allege 
a vioiaiioii, to desire the judgfnent oftiiai iriljunal : and to 
acquiesce therein, respectfully and pea- eably, as the final 
decision of a supreme, indej -ideiit aibiter, constituted 
such by theff'st^lve--. 

Resuhed, That the Tariff Act of 18i8 is not a|)«/pa6Ze 
breach of the Constitution of the United States, not only be- 
cause it neither aihrnis what is dt^oied, nor denies what is 
affirmed in the Co: stitution ; but because the constitutionality 
of the protf'cling sybtein was not called in question in Congressi, 
in the Siat.-; liegislaiure^, or by the people, till the year 
1824, after an open, continued, and extensive practice of 
thirty-five years. 

Resolied^ That the Act of Congress of 4th July, 1789, 
(the seer fid passed by tlie National Government,) must be 
regarded as a cotemporauf ous exposition of the constitutional 
right of the General Government, to protect domestic ma- 
nufactures ; because the subject was distinctly brought to 
the view of Congress by the amendment of Mr. Fitzsimons, 
accepted by Mr. Madison, by the petitions of the manufac- 
turers, by the nature of the argument on the duty and ton* 
nage bills, by the character of the provisions, and emphati- 
cally by the preamble of the former, which expressly de- 
clares one ohjert to be, ^'^ the encouragement dmd protection 
oidomesiic manufactures." 

Resolved^ Thai such coteraporaneous exposition is entitled 
to the highest confidence, as the wise, salutary and sound 
construction ; be cause unwarrantable extensions by the new 
Government, of their granted powers, and usurpations of 
others not granted, had been boldly and repeatedly pre- 
dicted ; because the first movements of that Government 
were watched with extreme jealousy by those who had ob- 
jected to the Constitution; because the first Congress ccm- 
sisted of men of both parties, of talents, integrity and expe^ 
rience, and contained sixteen of the Delegates, who had 
formed the Constitution ; because George Washington, the 
President of the Convention, was the President who signed 
the Bill ; and lastly, because the repeated, unquestioned 
practice of the Government, from 1789 to 1824, can be 
regarded in no other light, than as so many republicationf 
of that original, cotemporaueous exposition. 

Resolved^ As the State of South-Carolina has declared, 
that she believes the Tariff Act of 1828, to be unconstitu- 
tional, as a " misconstruction or abuse of power," she owes 
it to her own sense of^dignity and propriety, to her love of 



17 

regulated freedom, of peace and order, to follow the ex- 
ample set in l'^S9, by applying throiigli her State Legisla- 
ture to her sister Slates, to unite with her in applying to 
Congress for a " declaratory or restrictive amendment," 
through the Convention. 

Resolved^ That until the remedies pointed out by the Con- 
stitution, and recommended by wisdom, experience and 
a spirit of moderation, have been exhausted, viz. : " the 
petition of the people for a redress of grievances," under the 
first amendment, the decision of the Supreme Court, under 
the second section of the third article, and the application for 
an amendment, under the fifth article of the National Con- 
stitution, it is neither the duty nor the interest of South-Caro- 
lina, nor can she, consistently with honor and good faith, with 
wisdom and prudence, with her attachment to tranquility and 
order, and with a saci ed regard to her own example and influ- 
ence in the Union, take any measures founded on a resort to 
sovereign rights and sovereign authority. 

Resolved, That it is the opinion of the people of South- 
Carolina, as expressed at all their public meetings, that the 
Tariff Act of 1828 is unconstitutional; that even if it be 
Constitutional, it is, in the judgment of the same people, in- 
expedient as a National measure, and unjust in relation to 
the Southern States, on account of the great and sudden in- 
crease in the amount of duties ; that since Congress regards 
the Tariff Act as Constitutional, and must legislate according- 
ly, South-Carolina, without waiving her denial thereof, and 
her right to try the question constitutionally, will apply to 
Congress, on the ground of inexpediency and injustice, to re- 
tionsider and modify the Law, consistently with a wise and 
temperate policyc 

vN. B. The debate occurred in CQinmitteegf the Whole. 



:Fii@@ie 



VLr. Chairman, 

I HAVE heard with pain and sorrow, the opinion, that 
in the present crisis, it well becomes South-Carolina to apr 
proach her sister States, and the National Government, with 
tine Sword in one hand, and the Olive B) aich in the other ; 
that she walks in the paths of honor and duty, when she 
ofTers the alternative of War or Peace. I may admire the 
chivalry and frankness of the sentiment, but I cannot depre- 
eate too much a feeling so unnatural, so indiscreet, so un- 
wise. We are, and I trust we shall ever continue to be> 
one family, bound together by the ties of a common ances- 
ry , eminent for the cultivation of peace at home, and only 
glorious in foreign wars. Not ooe of these States has ever 
yet shed the blood of a brother, notwithstanding the colli- 
sions of interest, and the exasperation of angry passions. 
This, perhaps, is the most solemn and important lesson, 
which the rest of the world can karn from us : And shall 
we not profit by it ourselves ? Be it, then, our unchange- 
able feeling, our irrevocable purpose, as it is our holiest 
duty and highest interest, that the sword never shall be 
drawn against the National Government, or a Sis^ter State. 
Let the people of this country, in the East and the West, in 
the North and the South, engrave this sentiment on the table 
of their hearts, and reverence it as a religious truth. Let 
them resolve, and call God to witness the vow- that the. 
voice of a Brother's blood shall never cry from the ground 
against them. To live and to die in this sentiment, is re- 
commended by interest, advised by wisdom, and commanded 



20 

by duty. Let us take an illustration from the circle of do-- 
mestic life. What son can think, without horror, of un- 
sheathing the sword against a father, however unjust and 
even tyrannical .'' What brother can brook the thought, that 
he could ever be driven, by any extremity of injury or cru- 
elty, to shed his brother's blood ? Nature, Religion, pub- 
lic and private duty, the social feeling, the peace of fami- 
lies, have ordained these as irrevocable laws. Even the 
barbarous code of false honor, though it spares the friend, the 
neighbour, the acquaintance, no more than the stranger and 
the enemy, has respected the sanctuary of a household. 
And shall not this fa.mily of States reverence the command- 
ments of a holier and nobler law, to tham the only true law 
of honor and virtue, of enduring happiness, peace and im- 
provement.'' Let them banish then forever from their in- 
tercourse, the language of the warrior, and all the thoughts, 
SMid feelings, and associations, which ary crowded together 
in that single expression — W.\k. Is one of them insulted 
by a thoughtless unfeeling brother .'' Let hitn remember, 
that violence must aggravate, but cannot cure the evil. 
Are some the victims of selfishness and injustice .'' They 
would do >vcll to consider, that angry words a:ul intemperate 
conduct can avail nothing, and may produce greater injuries. 
Are any the sufferers by a brother's usurpation or abuse 
of aitbority .'' What can threats and denunciations do, but 
to exat/perate the guilty against the innocent ? Let the na- 
tions of Europe employ war, and its ministers of wrath, to 
chastise (he insolent, to exact justice from the unjust, and 
to humble tyranny ; but let the people of each state, under 
every temptation and trial, arising from the National Gov- 
ernment, or other states, rely only on the arguments of wis- 
dom and moderation, and on the eloquence of friendship 
and forbearance. Our country is emphatically a land of re- 
gulated liberty, of laws and principles. Our government 
is pre-eminently the government of the people, the off- 
spring of mutual concessions and common interests. There 
is, in the great body of the citizens of every state, a fund 
of good sense, of equity and candor, which, in the course 



21 

-of years, will assuredly do that which is right. Let us ne- 
ver distrust, much less despair of them. What though, for 
a season, we may be reviled, or injured, by sister states, 
or be oppressed by ihe power of the general government ? 
What though we may see, iii our judgment, with absolute 
certainty, that we are the victims of sectional prejudice, or 
local interests, of fraud, intrigue, and corruption ? Let us 
never distrust our country, nor despair of the Republic. 
On the contrary, let us cling fast to the hope, that Ameri- 
cans will, at the last, respect truth and reason, and yield to 
manly, temperate, candid remonstrance, and brotherly ex- 
postulation. Let us, then, before we approach the sanc- 
tuary of our Parent* Government, banish the feelings of 
anger from our hearts, the language of menace from our 
lips, and the expression of resentment from our countenance. 
Before we address the august assembly of sister states, let 
us remember, that we cannot honor and respect them too 
highly, nor act ourselves with too much dignity, self rever- 
ence, and moderation. Before we enter the sacred pre- 
sence of our country, let us cast far away the sword, and 
speak to her only in the spirit of faith and of hope, of peace 
and of love. 

Pardon me for having detained you thus long from the 
great object of my remarks. But if you honor the son or the 
brother, who mourns over the dissensions of his family, I 
know that you will respect the feelings which I have ex- 
pressed. No one can behold unmoved the present crisis ; 
or be insensible to the delicate and perilous situation of 
South-Carolina. The language of her Representatives in 
Congress, the Resolutions of the Legislature at the last 
session, and numerous public meetings of the citizens, have 
placed her almost in the attitude of resistance. The people 
have left it to their Legislature to decide what becomes her 
in point of dignity and honor, of duty and interest. For my- 
self, I need not say, that I have objected anxiously and ear- 
nestly] to the course, which has been thus far pursued. I 

* See Note A, 



22 

Ixave f«U, and thouglit, and said, that it was unwise and utb* 
constitutional. I say so still. But I shall waste neither 
yourtima norray strength, in an argument on the constitu- 
tiot^ality ef the Tariff, founded on the construction of the 
National Charter. Waiving that topic, so fruitful in the 
principles of political science, in the lessons of our own ex- 
perience under the Oonfederacy, and in the illustrations to 
be gathered from our history since 1789, I proceed to offer 
my views : And though I shall draw largely on your patience 
and liberal forbearance, I know that your sense of duty will 
ask no apology, because I am discharging my duty, accord- 
ing to the best of my judgment and conscience, to our com- 
mon country. 

First, then, I shall endeavor to show you, that cotempo- 
raneous expositions of the Constitution, acted upon succes- 
sively for years, ought to settle its construction, and that 
no State can wisely or lawfully call them in question ; or 
consistently with her relations to the General Government 
and the other States, resist the authority which they 
recognize. 

No one, I believe, has ever disputed the wisdom and im-^ 
portance of this rule. It is indispensable to peace and order* 
in all states of society, and under all forms of government. 
It is respected in all ; and no person acquainted with history, 
can doubt that a succession of cotemporaneous expositions 
of the unwritten, customary law of Europe has led the way 
insensibly to a series of improvements, that have made her 
what she now is, compared to her condition, during the 
dark ages. But there is no country, in which this principle 
is more valuable, or ought to be held more sacred, than in 
America. Our's is a government of the people, and all pub- 
lic officers are the responsible agents of the people. Their 
acts are those of the people, through their lawful represen- 
tatives, they affect the rights and interests of the people, 
and the people only are the ultimate tribunal to ratify or' 
reject their measure^. Hence, in our country, a construc- 
tion of the constitutio.i publicly asserted by one department, 
repeatedly actcl upon and acquiesced in through a period 



2g 

of years, by the people and the other departments, acquires 
the ucdoubted force of law. If such an exposition does not 
settle the meaning of the constitution, nothing ever will : 
and yet a s'ettled construction oflhat instrument is indispen- 
sable to private and public rights and security ; to peace> 
Order, and prosperity. It may be asserted with confidence, 
that such an exposition, so published, sustained, and illus- 
trated, cannot exist, where the power exercised was not 
granted And if, in the opinion of statesmen of an after 
age, the power had not been conferred, the judgment of 
discretion and wisdom would be, that such a construc- 
tion must be respected and obeyed as Law, being the 
solemn act of those, on whom devolved the right and respon- 
sibility of deciding, and whose duties, interests and oppor- 
tunities made them preeminently the fittest judges. If 
such would be the sound, safe doctrine of the patriot, even 
on such a supposition, how much more sacred ought the con- 
struction to be esteemed, when a minority only of intelli- 
gent men, have pronounced, in an after age, against it ; while 
the great majority of the people and of their rulers, whe- 
ther state or national, have never doubted. In either case, 
such a construction acquires an authority, too sacred and 
binding, to be safely and wisely controverted, much less to 
be denied and resisted. Even if we could suppose a vast 
majority of the people and of their rulers to hold a different 
opinion, in an after age, yet if they consulted their own se- 
curity, dignity and interest, the consistency and stability of 
their institutions, and the respect due to the wise and good 
of a former generation, it would become them to tolerate 
no departure, till an amendment had been constitutionally 
adopted.* 

Secondly. I proceed novr to the application of this princi-, 
pie. I then say, that according to the true theory and sound 
construction of our State and National Constitutions, th« 
Judiciary is the lawful, competent tribunal to decide on the 
CQustitutiouality of any act of the Legislature, whether it 

* See Pjote B\ 



affects the rights of an individual or of a State : And that a 
practice of forty years has established this as the opinion of 
the people both of the State and of the Union, and as the 
judgment of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial De^- 
partinents, both national and local. 

Those, who framed the constitution of this State, certaiin- 
ly intended, that it should embrace a provision for every 
known difficulty and emergency, which the history of their 
own or of other countries had recorded. With a view to 
cases of a peculiar character, or of extraordinary difficulty, 
they ordained the remedy of amendment, not through a 
Convention, but by two successive Legislatures. But for 
all cases of an ordinary character, they meant to provide, 
and I contend, they have amply provided, by the proceed- 
ings of impeachment and indictment, by the Courts of Jus- 
tice and the elective Franchise. Now, it is obvious, that 
cases of neglect of duty, and of abuse or usurpation of pow- 
er, were regarded by the Convention, as matters of orii- 
nary breach of duty, and were intended, according to the 
theory of the Constitution, to be remedied, in the well 
established modes abovementioned. Abuse and usurpation 
of power were familiar events in English and in our own 
Colonial history. The Revolution, in fact, had arisen from 
them : and one great object of the framers of our new Con- 
stitutions, was to guard against the possibility of a i^ecar* 
rence to first principles, to revolutionary measures. If thef 
regarded abuse and usurpation of power, as offences of a 
well known and ordinary character, like neglect of dtity, 
then they considered them as amply provided foi-, (ih alii 
the forms, in which they had previously occurred) by irtdict- 
ment and impeachment, by elections and courts ; whi]« 
p^uliar and extraordinary cases came under the provision 
for amendments. The irresponsibility to us of the Kmg 
•nd his Ministers, of the Parliament and of the King's Oo- 
Ternors and Judges, were the causes of the Revolutitm, 
and these evils, the like of which we have not yet witnessed, 
and doubtless never shall witness under our systems, ar« 
all provided for in the modes already mentioned. Ther« 



25 

remains then nothing, upon which the reserved rights and 
powers of the primitive sovereignty of the people can act, 
except on those unforeseen, unexampled cases, which oc- 
Gur at far distant intervals, in the best ordered states of 
society, and under the best regulated governments. No 
such events have occurred since the Revolution ; and I do 
not believe, that even our children's children are destined to 
witness them. Our State and National authorities have 
furnished many instance* of neglect and misconstruction, of 
abuse and usurpation of power ; yet they have all been 
punished or remedied, without resort to the doctrine of pri- 
mitive sovereignty, or to first principles. Indeed, I consi- 
der it among the highest proofs of the wisdom and foresight 
of the framers of our constitutions, that they have provided, 
so comprehensively and effectually, by Courts of Justice 
and Elections, and Amendments, against the necessity of a 
recurrence to primitive rights, to reserved sovereignty, or 
to revolutionary measures. 

With these principles in view, I shall now proceed to 
show you, that under the practical exposition of our own 
State Constitution of 1790, the neglect, abuse or usurpa- 
tion of power, wheth'er by the Legislative or Executive 
Departments, has been invariably remedied, through the 
ballot box and the Courts. Of the former, I shall say nothing, 
for the exercise of the remedial authority of the people, 
whenever they are dissatisfied with their rulers, is so fami- 
liar, of such continual occurrence, and so peaceable, yet 
effectual in its operation, as to need not a word. But what 
I deem all-important to be noticed, is the position, which I 
shall now endeavor to establish, that whenever neglect, 
abuse or usurpation of power, by the Legislature or Execu- 
tive, whatever may have been its form or object, has affect- 
ed the life, the liberty, or the property of the humblest 
individual, the Courts of Justice have taken cognizance of 
the question, have repeatedly decided the act to be uncon- 
•titutional, and protected the individual against the Legisla- 
ture and the Executive, even in the exercise of their high- 
fist sovereign authority. And mark the result, tb« people 
8 



26 

have acquiesced ia the judgment of their Courts ; and the 
very Departments, whose proceedings were declared repug- 
nant to the Constitution, have acted on the supposition, that 
the Courts had exercised only a well-known and laicful juris- 
diction. Now, it is difl&cult to conceive an act of the Legis- 
lature, and still less of any other branch of the Govern- 
ment, unless it be purely an act of political discretion, 
(Madison's Message on the Bonus bill, 3d March, 1817), 
which does not present a case for the judgment of d Court ; 
because no such act can be imagined, which does not affect, 
directly or indirectly, life, liberty or property. Let the 
case exist, and if the individual, who is affected, chooses 
to demand a trial, the combined power of the Legislative 
and Executive Departments, cannot constitutionally with- 
draw the question from the jurisdiction of the Courts.* 
Suffer me, in illustration of these views, to notice some of 
the most remarkable instances, in which the Judges have 
pronounced the acts of the Governor and Legislature to be 
repugnant to the Constitution. 

In Bowman rs. Middleton, they decided in 1792, that an 
Act of the Colonial Assembly, which had transferred the 
freehold of A. to B. was against common right, and the 
principles of Magna Charta. 1 Bay, 252. In Zylstra vs, the 
City Council, in 1794, Judge Waties held that the Legisla- 
ture could not give to the Court of Wardens the power t# 
convict of penalties to any amount without a Jury. 1 Id. 382. 
In White us. Kendrick, in 1806, that the Legislature could 
riot constitutionally increase the jurisdiction of Justices be- 
yond Twenty Dollars. 1 Brevard's Digest, p. 476, N. 
In Cohen vs. Hoff, in 1814, that the Act of 1769, re-eaacted 
by that of 1799, authorising the Governor to appoirit a tem- 
porary substitute, in case of the sickness of a Judge, was in- 
consistent with the Constitution. 2 Tread. 656. In January^ 
1817, that an Act, in pursuance of an amendment of the 
Constitution, was unconstitutional ; because it had been 
ratified on the same day with the amendment. In Hayes vs. 

* See Note C 



2t 

Harley, in 1817, that Ordinaries are Judges, not remove^ 
able by the Legislature, and that the Act of 1812, which 
declared that Ordinaries then in office, should go out on the 
1st Dec. 1816, was unconstitutional. 1 C. CD. (Mill.) 267. 
In the State vs. Lyles, in 1821, that Ordinaries being Judges, 
hold their offices during /t/e, though elected by the People, 
under the Act of 1812, which limits their office to /o«r years. 
1 M'C. 238. In the State vs. Hutson, in 1821, the same 
point as to an Ordinary appointed by the Governor, till an 
election. I Id. 240. In the State w. M'Clintock, in 1821, 
that a Sheriff, though appointed by the Governor, under 
the Act of 1808, only till an election^ held under the Con- 
stitution for four years. 1 Id. 244. In the State vs. Allen, 
in 1822, that the Act which imposed a tax of $10,000 on Lot- 
tery Office Keepers, and authorised the Collector to issue 
an execution for it, was unconstitutional. 2 M*C. 55. In 
Dunn vs. the City Council, in 1824, that the Legislature 
could not constitutionally empower the City Council to take 
more of a Lot, than was required for widening the street. 
Harp. L. Rep. 189. 

Nor has this power been exercised by the Court, in 
relation to the Legislative department only. The Ex- 
ecutive also has been declared in like manner to have 
exercised authority not conferred. In August, 1813, 
Judge Bay decided, in the case of Lamb vs. Young- 
blood, that a Court Martial, organized under the Gene- 
ral Orders of Governor Alston, to try militia men under 
the rules and articles of war, was unauthorised. He 
accordingly discharged Lamb from the arrest ; the Go- 
vernor acquiesced ; the Legislature was summoned to meet 
in September, and passed an amendatory Militia Law. 
The Governor, in his General Orders, says, " The Com- 
mander in Chief receives the decision of the Court, with 
the submission due to the constituted Tribunals of a free 
State." Thus, in 1798, in Hawkins vs. Arthur, 2 Bay. 195, 
z grant of part of the Saxegotha Township was declared 
void. In 1800, in the case of Wm. H. Gibbes, Master in 
Equity, the Court of Chaucery decided, that he held hit 



2S 

ofliice during good behavior, and was not removable by the 
Legislature, and that the Governor's Commission to another 
person was void. 1 So. Ca. Eq'y. R. 587. In 1804, in 
Rowe a(?s. the State, 2 Bay, 565, and in State is. Willi- 
ams, in 1817, 2 N. & M'C. 26, that the Governor could not 
remit that part of a penalty, which goes to the informer. 
In Jeter ads. the State,;^ in 1821, that the terms of the Go- 
vernor's commission cannot decide the tenure of an office ; 
and in the same year, tbey twice again decided the same 
point, in State vs. Hutson, I M'Cord, 240 ; and State vs. 
M'Clintock, 1 Id. 245. Thus, then, it appears, that the 
Judges have repeatedly exercised this power : And it is 
notorious, that in all these cases, the People at large ac- 
quiesced, and that the Legislative and Executive Depart- 
ments have also acknowledged and confirmed the jurisdiction 
thus asserted and acted upon. When has the Legislature 
or the Executive denied or resisted the judgment of our 
Courts ? Who has ever heard of any attempt to impeach a 
Judge for an usurpation of power, because he claimed and 
exercised this authority ? And yet no intelligent man can 
look at the instances, which have been enumerated, with- 
out seeing, that they called in question, in various forms, 
the highest sovereign authority of both the coordinate 
branches of the Government. Nor can he fail to see, that 
they present abundant illustrations of what has been already 
said, — that scarcely any act can be done by the Legislative 
or Executive Departments, which cannot become a case 
for the judgment of a Court, because it touches invariably 
in some form or other, the life, liberty or property of the 
citizen. Hence, I conclude, that the practical consequence 
from this review, and the public acquiescence in the law, 
as thus settled by the Courts, is, that any act of abuse or 
usurpation of power by the Legislature or Governor, which 
can become a case between an individual and the public, is 
a case of ordinary breach of duty, and must be remedied, 
according to the true theory of the Constitution, through the 
Courts of Justice. 
This series of decisious establishes then, beyond all 



29 

contreversy, that this is the true, cotemporaneous, coft- 
iinued interpretation of the State Constitution. Nothing 
but an amendment can alter this Law — so often publicly 
declared, and solemnly approved. Nor let us forget, that 
if a State be, in any respect, properly and peculiarly 
sovereign^ it is in relation to her own Tribunals and Officers, 
created only by, and responsible only to, herself. And yet, 
she has acknowledged her atrenability to those very Courts, 
for the Acts of her State Departments, under her own Stale 
Constitution. And here, I shall remark once for all, with a 
view to the decisions both of the State and the National Tri- 
bunals, that the result of the Judicial inquiry does not affect 
the position, that the Courts have repeatedly asserted in vari- 
ous forms, their right and duty to examine the constitution- 
ality of Legislative and Executive proceedings. If they had 
in every instance decided javorahly^ still those Depart- 
ments and the people at large would have been publicly no- 
tified, that the Judges claimed this jurisdiction ; and acqui- 
escence would have amounted to ackaowledgraent, that they 
had acted constitutionally. But, they have, on the contra- 
ry, so often decided unfavorably^ and their adjudication has 
been so often recognized, both affirmatively and negatively, 
tliat it ceases to be a case of doubtful silence, or a casus omis- 
sus. In a word, the Judiciary has frequently resisted the usur- 
pations of the other Departments; but neither these nor the 
people have ever resisted Ikat resistanccy as an alledged 
usurpation by the Judiciary. This course of events has 
settled the construction ofthe Constitution. 

I shall state merely by reference to the cases, various 
other instances, in which the constitutionality of Acts of 
the Legislature or Governor has been considered and con- 
firmed by the Courts. As to the Legislature — See Lind- 
say «s. Commissioners of East Bay, 1796, 2 Bay. 3b. Col- 
lins ws. Kincaid, 1804, 2 Bay. 536. State ws. O'Dr^r.oIl, 
1816, 2 Treadway, 718. Slate vs. Antonio, 1816, 2 Id. 776. 
Eggleston t)S. the City Council, 1817, I C C. D. (Mill.) 
45. Murray vs. Alston, 1817,, 1 Id. 128. VYilsnn t>5. 
Bljtylock, 1816, 2 Id. 351. Stark at?«. M'Gowan, 1818, 



Nott & M'C. 387. Alexander vs. Gibson, 1819, 1 Id. 480. 
Bulow and others «s. City Council, 1 N. & M'C. 527, in 
1819. State vs. Helfrid, 1820, 2 Id. 283. Lange vs, 
Kohne, 1821, 1 M'C. 115. Cruickshanks vs. City Coun- 
cil, 1821, 1 M'C. 360. Billis ads. the State, 1822, 2 Id. 
12. Belcher ads. Commissioners of Orphan House, 1822, 
2 Id. 23. City Council vs. Rogers, 1822. 2 Id. 495. 
State vs. Harrison. Same vs. Seaborn, 1823, Harp. L. 
Rep. 88. City Council vs. Plowden Weston. 1824, Id. 
340. M'Kenna vs. Commissioners of Roads, 1824, Id. 381. 
Peake IS. Cautey& Johnson, 1825, 3 M'Cord, 107. Tal- 
vande fs. Cripps, 1825, 3 Id. 147. Annsley vs. Timmons, 
1825, 3 Id. 329. All the above were in the Court of Law. 
In Equity, the following cases furnish instances : Nelson 
vs. Rutledge, 1791, 1 S. C. Eq'y. R. 194. Washington 
vs. Beresford & Finger, 1792, 1 Id. 361. Byrne vs. Slew- 
art, 1812, 3 Id. 466. The following case relates to the 
Governor— State I's. Fuller, 1821, 1 M'Cord, 178. 

Let us now turn totlie National Constitution ; and under 
that, we shall find the same clear, original, continued ex- 
position, but of a far more important character, as embra- 
cing the Nationrtl and State Constitutions, the acts of the 
President, the Laws of Congress and of the States, the 
Judgments of State Courts, and the (iv.thority of the States in 
the exercise of their highest sovereign powers, as well as the 
rights of individuals. Before we enter on this review, some 
preliminaries will be of material consequence. 

It is obvious, that, under the Confederation, there was 
but one point of view, in which we could have a National 
Court, viz. as to questions arising out of a state of war. 
Accordingly we find, that although the Admiralty jurisdic- 
tion remained with the States, yet Congress had power 
to constitute a Court of Appeals from the judgments of the 
State Courts. Art. Conf. A. 9. 3d Dallas, 19, 42, 54, 
66, 88, 120. 5th Cranch, 115, U. S. vs. Peters. Nor 
was an appellate power over State Tribunals any novelty 
under the new Constitution. 1 Wheat. 345, Martin vs. 
Hunter. And in Chi sol ra t"?. Georgia, 2 Dall. 474. Chief 



31 

Justice Jay, one of the purest, wisest, anJ best of our Re- 

Tolutionary Patriots and Statesmen, says — 

" Prior to the date of the Constitution, the people had not 
any naticrjal tribunal to \Ahich they could resort for justice ; 
the distribution of justice was then contined to State judica- 
tories, in whose institution and organization the people of 
the other States had no participation, and over whom they 
had not the least conlrouj. There was then no general 
Court of appellate jurisdiction, by whom the errors of State 
Courts, affecting either the ration at large or the citizens 
of any other State, could be revised and corrected. Each 
State was obliged to acquiesce in the meastire of justice, 
which another State might yield to her, or to her citizens ; 
and that even incases, wheie State considerations were not 
always favorable to the most exact n^ieasure. There was 
danger that from this source animosities would in time re- 
sult ; and as the transition from animosities to hostilities 
was frequent in the history of independent States, a com- 
mon tribunal for the termination of controversies became 
desirable, from motives both of justice and of policy. 

" Prior also to that period, the United States had, by 
taking a place among the nations of the earth, become ame- 
nable to the laws of nations ; and it was their interest as 
well as their duty to provide, that those laws should be 
respected and obeyed ; in their national character and ca- 
pacity, the United Slates were res^ponsible to foreign nations 
for the conduct of each State, relative to the laws of na- 
tions, and the performance of treaties ; and there the Inex- 
pediency of referring all such questions to State Courts, 
and particularly to the Courts of delinquent States, became 
apparent. "While all the States were bound to protect 
Mtc/i, and the citizens of each^ it was highly proper and 
reasonable, that they should be in a capacity, not only to 
cause justice to be done to each, and the citizens of each; 
but also to cause justice to be done by each, and the citi- 
zens of eacb ; and that, not by violence and force, but in a 
stable, sedate, and regular course of judicial procedure." 

Before the adoption of the Constitution, also, Luther 
Martin, in his memorable address to the Legislature of 
Maryland, in January, 1788, prefixed to Yates's Debates, 
expresses himself thus : 

'' By the third article, the judicial power of the United 
States is vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior 
ci)iivts^ as the congress may from time to time ordain and 
estaUish : These courts, and these only, yj^W have a right 



32 

to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all ques- 
tions arising upon ihsir coastruction, and in a judicial man- 
ner to carry tiiose laws into execulion ; to which the courts 
both superior and inferior of the respective states and their 
judges and other magistrates are rendered incompetent. 
To the courts of the general government are also confined 
all cases in law and equity, arising under the proposed con- 
stitution, and treaties made under the authority of the 
United States — all cases affecting ambassadors, other pub- 
lic ministers and consuls — all cases of admiralty and ma- 
ritime jurisdiction — all controversies to which the Unn 
ted States are a party — all controversies between two or 
more states — between a state and citizens of another state — 
betvvesn citizens of the same state, claiming lands under 
grants of different states, and between a state or the citt-. 
zens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. Whe- 
ther therefore, any laws or regulations of the congress, of 
any acts o( its president or otksr ojjicers are contrary to, or not 
vSarranted by, the constitution, rests only with the judges 
who are appu'ited by congress to determine ; by whose deter- 
minations every state must be bound/^ 

Let us look also at the Federalist on this subject, (No. 78, 
■et Seq.) and we shall see that the right of the Courts of 
the Uiiion to jud^e of the constitutionality of Laws, is ex- 
pressly asserted, as the true construction and a most im- 
portant feature of the new Constitution. The same posi- 
tion is equally apparent in the' debates at the first session 
of the Fhso Congress in 1789, when the constitutionality of 
a law, organizing the Department of Foreign Affairs, came 
up for discussion : during which many of the members ex- 
pressed the opinion, that the Judges were the only proper 
Tribunal for deciding such questions ; whilst others held, 
that the Legislature ought first to act, leaving the final 
judgment, where it eventually belonged, to the Courts* 
Seethe Debates, 1st vol. p, 219to596, and 2d vol. p. 205 
to 324. What makes this matter the more interesting and 
important is, that although the Supreme Court had not ad- 
judged any Act of Congress to be repugnant to the Constitik 
tion, prior to 1800, yet they had decided in favor of the con- 
stitutionality of Laws of the Union. In some instances, how- 
ever, the Judges had so decided separately on Circuit. 4 
Pall. p. 19. And Chief Justice M'Kean, of the Supremo 



Cgurt of Pennsylvania, as late as 1708, uses the following 
ramarkable language, in the Commonwealth vs. Cobbett, 
3 Dall. 473, after the national Judges had repeatedly 
decided against the claims of the States^ in some very im- 
portant instances : 

"The divisions of power between the national, federal, 
and state governments, (all derived from the same source, 
^he authority of the People) must be collected frem the 
constitution of the United States. Before it was adopted, 
the several States had absolute and unlimited sovereignty 
within their respective boundaries ; all the powers, legis- 
lative, executive, and judicial, excepting those granted to 
Congress under the old constitution : They now enjoy them 
all, excepting such as are granted to the government of the 
United States by the present instrument and the adopted 
amendments, which are for particular purposes only. The 
government of the United States forms a pari of the government 
of each State ; its jurisdiction extends to the providing for 
the common defence against exterior injuries and violence, 
the regulation of commerce, and other matters specially 
enumerated in the Constitution ; all other powers remain 
in the individual states, comprehending the interior and 
other concerns ; these combined^ form one complete govern- 
ment. Should there be any defect in this form of govern- 
ment, or any collision occur, it cannot be remedied by thfi 
sole act of the Congress, or of a State; the people must be 
resorted to, for enlargement or modification. If a State 
should differ with the United States about the construction of 
them, there is no common umpire but the people, who 
j^hould adjust the affair by making amendments in the constitU" 
iional ivay, or suffer from the defect. In such a case the Con- 
stitution of the United States is federal ; it is a league or 
treaty made by the individual States, as one party, and all 
the States, as another party. When two nations differ 
about the meaning of any clause, sentence, or word in a 
treaty, neither has an exclusive right to decide it ; they 
endeavour to adjust the matter by negociation, but if it can- 
Dot b»e thus accomplished, each has a right to retain its own 
interpretation, until a reference be had to the mediation of 
other nations, an arbitration, or the fate of war. There is 
no provision in the Constitution^ that in such a case the Judges 
of the Supreme Court of the United States shall control and be 
conclusive : neither can the Congress by a law confer that 
power. There appears to be a defect in this matter, it is 
a casus omissus, which ought in some way to be remedied. 
Perhaps the Vice-President and Senate of the United Statetb, 
9 



3* 

•sr conimissioners appointed, say one by eacli State, vvouTd 
be a more |)roper tribunal than the Supreme Court. Be 
that as it may, I rather think the remedy mwt be found in an 
amendment of the Constitution.^^ 

Here then was a denial of the authority, which the Na- 
tional Courts had previously exercised, and have continued 
to exercise ever since. Thos. M'Kean was certainly a great 
man ; but greater men than himself, repeatedly, in the 
judgment seat of the Union, have denied and resisted his 
doctrine, have acted accordingly, and the Departments of 
•the General Government, the People of the Union, and 
the majority of the States, over and over again, as every 
separate case occurred, have acquiesced in the authority 
claimed, and have ratified it as constitutional. Even the 
Chief Jastice himself would he obliged to admit, that this 
branch of jurisdiction was no longer a " casu» omissus." 
Those who have studied the Constitution and the Federal- 
ist, as every American ought to study theq^ cannot fail to 
observe how little the Chief Justice has discriminated be- 
tween the national character of the present^ and the federa- 
tive character of the former, government : nor can they 
fail to notice the apparent inconsistency between tracing 
«very thing lo the People on the one hand, as the origin, 
and on the other hand referring every thing to them even- 
tually as the arbiters, and yet considering the Constitution^ 
with regard to the supposed casus omissus, as a Treaty 
or League. 

I proceed now to show the most important instances, is 
which the Courts have decided oa the question of the con- 
stitutionality of Acts of the Legislative and Executive De- 
partments. In conducting this enquiry, I shall show you 
first, the chief instances, in which they have done this, as 
to the Laws of the Union : Secondly, as to the Acts of the 
Executive of the Union : Thirdly, as to the Laws of parti- 
cular States : and, lastly, some other instances in which 
they liave acted on this principle. 

1st. And first as to the Laws of the UwioN. In 1793, 
Jay, Cushingj. and Duane,.ia the. Circuit Court at New- 



35 

York, decided that the Act of Congress, which required 
the Judges to execute the Pension ^ct, was unconstitutional, 
2 Dall. 410 : In 1793, in the case of Chisolm against Geor- 
gia, Judges Jay, Blair, Gushing and Patterson, decided 
against the remonstrance of Georgia, that she was liable to 
be sued as a Defendant by an Individual, in the Supreme 
Court, under the Constitution and Act of Congress. 2 Dall. 
429. This decision was the more remarkable and impor- 
tant, because Virginia had protested in like manner. 2 Id». 
429. In Hylton vs. the United States, in 1796, the Su- 
preme Court decided that a tax on Carriages was not a di- 
rect tax, and was therefore constitutionally laid. 3 Dall. 
171. In Marbury us. Madison, in 1801, that an Act of 
Congress, giving to the Supreme Court jurisdiction in a 
particular class of Mandamus cases, was unconstitutional. 
1 Cranch, 137. In 1803, in Stuart vs. Laird, that the 
Practice under the Constitution has settled its construction, 
as to the right of Congress to require the Judges of the Su- 
preme Court to do the duty of Circuit Judges. 1 Cranch, 
309. In Fisher vs. Blight, in 1805, that Congress had 
power to give to the United States a preference in certain 
cases of Insolvency. 2 Cranch, 358. In 1813, in Fairfax w. 
Hunter, they asserted and exercised their jurisdiction over 
the High Court of Appeals of Virginia, 7 Cranch, 604.. 
In 1816, in the same case, they again did the same, unde* 
the C. U. S. and A. C. 1 Wheat. 304. In 1819, in M'Cul- 
lock vs. Maryland, they did the same, and decided the con- 
stitutionality of the Bank Charter. 4 Wheat, 316.* In 
1821, they did; the like in the case of Cohens vs. Virginia. 
6 Wheat. 264-1 In 1823, they did the like, in the case of 
Buel vs. Van Ness. 8 Wheat. 312. In 1824, in Osborn vs. 
B. U. S. that the Act of Congress, enabling the Banks to sue 
in the Circuit Court of the U. S. was constitutional. 9 
Wheat. 738. And in 1828, in Ross vs. Doe, 1 Pet. 655, 
the same as in Buel vs. Van Ness. In 5 Wheaton, 1, 51, 
Houston vs: Moore, the Supreme Court declares, that whe» 

* S.ee Note IX t See Not* EJ 



Congress has rtcted on a subject of concurrent jurisdiction, 
"' all interfering State regulations must necessarily be sus- 
pended in their operation." In 9 Wheat. 1, 211, Gibbons 
vs. Ogden, they again say, " In every such case, the Act 
of Congress or Treaty is supreme, and the Law of the State 
though enacted in the exercise of powers not Controverted, 
iliust yield to it." A similar position is taken in Ogden rj, 
Saunders, 1^ Wheat. 213. And in Amiesley t?5. Tioimons, 
3 M'Cdrd, p. 3^9, 333, our present Court of Appeals, in 
So. Ca. concede, that whenever a case of concurrent juris- 
diction, the laws of a State and those of the Union, conflict, 
the latter are of paramount authority, and must prevail ; 
being the Supreme Law of the land. — See Constitution of 
V. S. A. 6, § 2. 

Let us now advert to the second class of ca^es, viz. : as 
i6 the President. In 1801, in Marbury rs. Madison, they 
decided, that the President could not constitutionally com- 
ihand the Secretary of State, in his Ministerial (not his po- 
litical) capacity to withhold a commission from a Justice of 
Peace. 1 Cranch, 137. In Little vs. Barreme, in 1804, 
that the President's instructions could not protect the Com- 
mander of a National vessel, if against law. 2 Cranch, 170. 
And in 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, that the President was 
the sole judge, under the Constitution, when the militia 
should be ordered out. 12 Wheat. 19. 

Thirdly. Let us now consider the third head of our sub- 
ject, viz. the constitutionality of State proceedings. In 
Georgian. Brailsford, in 1794, that the Sequestration Act 
of Georgia, was annulled by the Treaty of 1783. 3 Dall. 4. 
In 1795, in Vanhorne vs. Dorrance, the Circuit Court df 
tJ. S. for Pennsylvania District, decided, that the quieting 
and confirming act of Pennsylvania was unconstitutional. 2 
i)all. 304. In Ware rs. Hylton, in 1796, that, although 
under the Sequestration Act of Virginia, the Defendant 
had paid the debt due to the PlaintifT (a British creditor) 
into the State Treasury, under the Act, yet thot the treaty 
enabled the Plaintiff to recover it again from the De.^endant. 
3 Dallas, 199. And the same year, they decided the like - 



37 

point, in the case of Gierke vs. Harwood, under the Mary- 
land Confiscation Law. 3 Dall. 342. And in 1809 in Uni- 
ted States vs^ Peters, that a payment into the Treasury of 
Pennsylvania, under a Legislative act, did not protect the 
Debtor. In 1797, in United States vs. Dorrance, that the 
Naturalization Act of Pennsylvania, was void under the 
Constitution of Pennsylvania. 2 Dallas, 371. In 1804, in 
Ogden vs. Blackledge, that an act of North-Carolina was a 
nullity, 2 Cranch, 272. In 1809, in United States vs. 
Judge Peters, that the Legislature of a State, (Penusyl- 
rania) could not determine the jurisdiction of a Court of 
the Union, nor anuul its judgments. 5 Cranch, 115. In 
1810, in Fletcher vs. Peck, that a party to a contract cannot 
annul it, though that party be a sovereign State — and that a 
repealing law of Georgia was a nullity, as impairing the 
Dbligation of contracts. 6 Cranch, 87. In 1812, in New- 
Jersey vs. Wilson, that an act of New-Jersey, repealing a 
law, granting an exemption from taxes, was also void. 7 
Cranch, 164. In 1815, in Terrett rs. Taylor, that Virgi- 
nia could not grant the lands of the Episcopal Church to the 
use of the poor. 9 Crawch, 43. In 1815, in Paw let rs. 
Clark, the same pohit, that a Legislative grant of property 
is irrevocable, and that anact of Vermont, repealing a grant 
of unappropriated glebes was unconstitutional. 9 Cranch, 
29«i. In 1817, in Chirac vs. Chirac, that a Maryland state 
law of Natur. lization <vas a nullity, the jurisdiction being 
solely in Congress. 2 Wheat. 25 In Sturgis vs. Crown- 
inshield, in 1819- -'at a Stat?'* insolvent Law ofNew-York, 
was unconstituric lal. 4 Wheat. 122- In M'Millan vs. 
M'Neill, in 1819, the saiue point as to a similar law ot 
Louisiana. 4 Id. 209. Ir 1821, in Farmers and Mechanics 
Bankvs Smith, the saM? point as to a similar Pennsylvania 
law. 6 Whc-at 131. And in 18^7, in Ogden vs Saunders, 
they again decided against the validity oi a New-York In- 
solvent Law. 12 Wheat. 213. In 1^19, in M'Culloch rs.. 
Maryland that the Slate act taxing the Bank was unconsti- 
tutional, 4 Wheat. 316. And in 1824, in Oshornrs. Bank 
United States, the same point as to the Ohio act. 9. Id. 



58 

^38.* In 1819, in Dartmouth College «s. Woodward, 4 
Wheat. 518, that a State Law of New Hampshire, alter- 
ing the Charter, was void. In Green vs. Biddle, 1823, that 
an act of Kentucky, as to occupying claimants of land, was 
void — that the compact between Virginia and Kentucky is a 
contract within the 1st cl. 10th §. and 1st Art. of Constitu- 
t!,on of the United States, forbidding a State to impair the 
obligation of contracts. 8 Wheat. 1. In 1823, in the case 
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel rn Foreigh Parts 
vs. Wheeler and the To.vn of New Haven, (in Vermont) 
that an act of Vermont, granting the land of the Plaintiffs, 
was void. 8 Wheat. 4G4. In Gibbons t)s. Ogden, in 1824, 
that the Steam Boat Laws of New-York were unconstitu- 
tional, so far as they interfered with vessels licensed under 
laws of the United States, to carry on the coasting trade. 
Wheat 1. In 1835, in V/eyman r.?. Southard, 10 Wheat. 
I, and Bank United States vs. Halsted, 10 Wheat. 51, that 
two Kentucky statutes, as to taking Bank Notes in payment 
under executions, and as \o selling property at not less than 
three fourths of the appraised value, were not binding on 
Courts of the United States. In Brown, rs. Maryland, in 
1837, that a Maryland law, reqtiirtng an Importer of Foreign 
Goods to take out a license for selling them by tcholesaUy 
was nnconstiliitional. 12 Wheat. 419. 

Fourthly. Let us now turn to the fourth class of miscella- 
neous points in Marbury vs. Madison, in 1801, they de- 
cided, that the Secretary of State (of the U. S.) though 
exempt from process in his political capacity, can be com- 
pelled by mandamus to deliver a Commission, notwithstand- 
ing the express prohibition of the President. 1 Cranch, 137. 
Id 1812, in M'Kim vs. Voorhies, that a State Court, (of 
Kentucky) cannot enjoin a judgment of the U. S. Courts. 7 
Cranch, 279. In 1817, in Slocum ds. Mayberry, that if a 
State Court takes property from an officer of the United 
States, under a lawful seizure, the U. S. Court can com- 
pel a redelivery by attachment against the State Officer.- 2 

» See Note F- 



S9 

Wheat. I. InM'CIungDs. Silliman, inl82I, that a State 
Court cannot issue a mandamus to a Register of the U. S. 
Land Office. 6 Wheat. 598. In Anderson vs. Dunn, in 1831, 
that the Speaker's warrant to arrest the Plaintiff, was a 
constitutional exercise of power. 6 Wheat. 204. In the 
Governor of Georgia vs, Madrazo, in 1828, that the State 
was a party, because her Chief Magistrate was defendant 
by his official name— and, therefore, the Court had no juris- 
diction under the 10th amendment. 1 Pet. 110. In 182^, 
in the American Ins. Cy. vs Canter, that the Govern- 
ment of the United States can acquire Territory, under the 
powers to make war and to make treaties : and that in le- 
gislating for a Territory, Congress exercises the combined 
powers of the General and State Goveriiments. 1 Pet. 51 J. 
This review is assuredly sufficient to satisfy every rea- 
sonable man, that the Courts of the Union have asserted 
and acted under the authority to consider and decide — 1st. 
The Constitutionality of Acts of Congress — 2d. Of any order 
or authority alledged to be in pursuance of the Constitulioa 
and National Laws — 3d. The validity of State Laws — 4th. 
The legality of the Judgment of State Tribunals, whenever 
they have denied a right, or exemption, claimed under the 
Constitution, Treaties, Laws, or other authority of the 
Union, or have asserted a righl inconsistent with them — 5lh. 
They have decided against the remonstrances or claims oi^ 
States, made in the most solemn manner, and manifesting 
the exercise of their highest sovereign authority— In fine, 
they have protected the citizen against the officers of tlie 
Union, and have sanctioned the lawful authority of these 
over those : They have defended the privileges of the Ali- 
en, and even of Alien Corporations, against the Laws and 
Judges of the States : They have vindicated the rights of 
the citizen against the Legislature and Courts of his owa 
State ; and those of the Union against the assertion of State 
rights : They have called in question, and decided upon, 
the right of the States to pass laws to quiet and confirm the 
titles of their citizens, and of occupying claimants of lands : 
They have decided as to the power of tk© States to tax ^ 



49 

as to navigation on their own xv.-^ters ; as to naturalizatiou 
and insolvent laws ; as to the ai •i.ority to repeal their own 
acts ; as to their claim to contro- officers of the Union ; to 
modify their o^vn corporations ; to regulate the time and 
mode of collectin,^ .iebts ; and to restrain the powers of the 
Union. In two (^; cases, they have decided against, and 
in six, (6) ia favor of tne constiiutionality of Acts of Con- 
gress, in two (2) iuotaaces against, in two (2) in favor of 
the President of the United States, and in one (1) against 
the Secretary of State of the United States. In four (4) 
instances, they have adjudged State Laws to be valid ; but 
in tweuty-four {24) to be invalid. In twelve (12) cases, 
they have affirmed the judgments of State Courts ; but in 
seventeen, (17) they have set them aside. In six (6) in- 
stances, uiey have asserted and decided on ihe constitution- 
ality of their appellate power ; and in twenty-two (22) no 
objection has been made. In eight (8) cases, they have 
had the States before them by name, as well as in realityj 
and in live (5) remotely and eventually, though not nomi- 
nally and necessarily.* 

In the course of the events, which have been above enu- 
merated, the Courts of the Union have had the acts or 
claims of the States before them, and have had to decide, 
in relation to them, expressly or by implication, various 
points, to the following amount : As to North-Carolina, 
one (1) ; as to South-Carolina, one (1) ;t as to Massachu- 
setts, two (2) ; as to New-Hampshire, three (3) ; as to 
Connecticut, three (3; ; as to Kentucky, three (3) ; as to 
Tennessee, four (4) ; as to Mississippi, three (3) ; as to 
Vermont, four (4) ; as to Rhode Island, four (4) ; as to 
New Jersey, four (4) ; as to Louisiana, five (5) ; as to 
Georgia, seven (7) ; as to Ohio, seven (7) ; as to New- 
York, eleven (11) ; as to Pennsylvania, eleven (11) ; as to 
Virginia, eleven (11) ; a»d as to Maryland, fifteen (16) ; 
making in all, an aggregate of ninety -nine (99). Of the 
Old States, only Delaware, (she, who was the first to 

* See Note €. t See Note H 



41 

adopt this Constitution) appears never to have been be- 
fore the Courts of the Union : and of the New Slates, only- 
Maine, Indiana, Illinois, Alabama and Missouri. No one 
assuredly, of thess six States, would now hold herself at 
liberty to question the high constitutional authority of the 
national judiciary, thus publicly, solemnly, repeatedly as- 
serted and exercised ; and, beyond all question, approved 
and ratified by the People of the Union and of the States, 
by the Legislative and Executive Departments of the Na- 
tional Government, and by the Legislative and Judicial De- 
partments of the States. Although, it is true, particular 
States have resisted at times ; yet, as each has appeared 
in its turn, on the stage of controversy, the antagonist of the 
General Government, or of its Judiciary, tiie majority of 
the Union has looked on in silence. And when we remem- 
ber, that they are free and intelligent, the constituents of 
the one party, and the brethren of the other ; having the 
same rights, and subject to the same responsibilities ; that 
the cause of the one is the cause of all ; that abuse or usur- 
pation of power as to one, is the same as to all, we must 
say, that this country has pronounced, in the most courte- 
ous form, to the Stales, which have resisted, but in the 
most clear and satisfactory, in the most dignified and im- 
pressive manner, as to the Courts, which have decided 
against them, that the former^ and not the latter, have 
erred. New Hampshire and Vermont, New Jersey, Ohio 
and Kentucky, New-York and Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
Maryland and Georgia, have asserted their sovereign rights 
against the authority of the Union, and have appealed from 
the judgment of the National Courts, to the Nation itself, 
and to the States. Those August Tribunals have heard the 
appeal, with the dignity, candor and solemnity, which be- 
came themselves ; with the moderation and wisdom, which 
the occasion required ; with the respect and attention due 
to the remonstrances and the rights of free, intelligentj^ 
powerful States ; and with the fidelity and impartiality, 
which their servants, the Judges, claimed and expected at 
their hands. Those Tribunals have been sitting in judg- 
10 



4B 

Tsnent nearly forty years ; and, surely, a more affecUng, a 
nobler spectacle, has rarely been witnessed. And they 
have decided, again and again, in favor of the National Ju- 
diciary, against the States, by a vast majority in point of 
numbers and power, of impartiality and justice, of learning 
and talents. 

Ihe People of this country have thus furnished the most 
satisfactory evidence of their exposition of the national com- 
pact. They have sanctioned, by the whole tenor of their 
tpinions and conduct, the great truths for which I have con- 
tended, that the Framers of the Constitution desired, if 
possible, to construct so practical and complete a Govern- 
ment, as to render any recurrence to first principles, to 
revolutionary measures, unnecessary : that they established 
the scheme of amendmentSy through the medium of con- 
ventions, as the wise, safe, efficient remedy for doubts, 
defects and difficulties, otherwise unprovided for ; that 
they regarded the conduct of elective officers, as the ap- 
propriate subject of popular opinion, and secured the power 
to remove them, at an appointed time, but not before, t© 
the people ; that they regarded abuse and usurpation ofpower^ 
by the Union, or its Officers, by ihe States, or their Offi- 
cers, as instances of orrfwar^ breach of duty, and provided 
a remedy for them, by Impeachment, and by the adminis- 
tration of justice ; that the question, what power is to be 
added, if there be too little, or what shall be taken away, if 
there be too muchy is a proper subject for amendment^ where 
the point is agreed upon, or, if disputed, has been decided 
by the National Tribunal, in the last resort ; that the ques- 
tion, how their elective Officers have pleased them, is to 
be decided by the people ; that the question, what power 
is granted to the Agents of the people, or taken from the 
States, by the Constitution, is within the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court. But Ihey neither intended to acknow- 
ledge, nor did they reserve, ia letter or in spirit, expressly 
or by implication, any authority to a State, as representeei 
by its People, its Legislature, its Executive, or its Judici- 
ary, or even by a Convention of the State, to sit in jvdg" 



4S 

ment on the consiitutionality oj the measures of Cong^-ess^ of 
the President, or of any other Officer of the Union. The peo- 
ple have the constitutional power to petition (1st amend- 
ment*) for a redress of grievances ; the Legislature of a 
•State may propose an amendment to the Constitution, or 
may, if so proposed by Congress, consider, adopt, or re- 
ject one ; the Governor may give to the Legislature of a 
State, information of what he may conceive to be a viola- 
tion of the Constitution, with a view to the exercise of the 
power of Amendment, or with a view to the Constitutional 
mode of trying the question in a Court ;t and the Legisla- 
ture can take measures to carry this last, as well as the 
former, into eflect ; the Stale Judiciary may decide, io 
the first instance, that a law of Congress, or an act of the 
Officers of the General Government, is unconstitutional, 
subject, however, to revision, by the Supreme Court of 
the Union. These are the constitutional powers of the 
States in relation to the General Goverment ; but, beyond 
this, they cannot lawfully go. What is to be understood 
by the Sovereign authority of a State ; and what this State 
ean possibly do, in the present crisis, on the faith of Sove- 
reign authority, shall be hereafter considered. 

I have thus far endeavored to prove the importance and 
authority of cotemporaneous and continued expositions of 
the Constitution : to show you, that according to the true 
theory both of the State and National Constitutions, illus- 
trated and settled by a practice of forty years, the jurisdic- 
tion over constitutional questions is vested in the courts of 
justice ; and to demonstrate as the judgment of this country, 
that the Supreme Court of the Union, is the appointed tri» 
bunal to decide on the constitutionality of Acts done under 
or against the authority of the Union. To that Court be- 
longs then THE GREAT QUESTION, " Is the Tariff Act of 
1828 Constitutional ?" This memorable Law has been call- 
ed, in bold language, a fraud upon the Constitution. If so, 
it is an abuse of constitutional (not an usurpation of ungrante4) 

* See Note I. See Note K. 



4« 

power, from corrupt, or otlier improper motives, and can 
be remedied only by the petitions of the People, or through 
the ballot box. The People only can sit in judgment on the 
motives of their Representatives, and on the toisdom and expe- 
diency of their measures. They may discard the honest ser- 
vant, because they think him incapable ; the capable, be- 
cause they think him dishonest ; the man of talents, because 
they differ from him in the right use of his talents ; the wise 
and good man, because his views of national and state poli- 
cy nre not in accordance with their wishes or judgment- 
But the question, whether an Act of Congress be consti- 
tutional or not, can be settled only by the Supreme Court, 
if the object be to declare the Law a nullity, because it is 
repugnant to the Constitution. To amend the Constitution in 
that particular, whatever the motive may be, would not de- 
cide the question ; because an amendment is not in the na- 
ture of a judgment, annulling an act done in pursuance of a 
power ; but, admits a power to exist or not to exist, and 
simply takes away or modifies what is admitted to exist, or 
gives that, which is admitted, not to exist. Neither is a re- 
peal, in the nature o( Si judgment, declaring an act a nullity, 
because unconstitutional ; for the power to repeal implies an 
existing, operative law, constitutionally enacted, however in- 
expedient or unjust. If the law be conceded to be uncon- 
stitutional, it does not exist ; and you cannot repeal that 
which does not exist.* Neither can a petition of the peo- 
ple (1st. amendt.) for a redress of grievances, presented to 
Congress, look to any other remedy, than amendment or 
repeal. 

But two questions vrili be asked, with a view to a trial in 
the Supreme Court. First, does it become a sovereign 
state to submit a question respecting her sovereign rightg 
to that Court ? And secondly, how can the question be 
brought before that Tribunal } 

As to the first questio >, I have often heard it asserted, 
that the Tariff Act of 1828, invaded the sovereign rights of 

* See Note L. 



45 

South Carolina, but I have hitherto sought in vain for any 
proof. It does not interfere with her Executive, Legisla- 
tive or Judicial Departments, it does not affect her right to 
lay taxes, to regulate property, to create corporations, or to 
60 any one of the hundreds of lawful acts, which she has been 
<ioing, for the last forty years. Does it prevent her from 
protecting and encouraging agriculture or manufactures, arts 
and sciences, or from legislating on any subjects of local, 
domestic policy ? Docs it vest in the officers or courts of 
the Union in South Carolina any power, wbich they have 
not exercised from the formation of the Government ? Does 
it subject the citizen in South Carolina to liabilities or bur- 
thens, to which he has not been subject from the organiza- 
tion of the Government ? Does it affect any reserved right 
of the State ; if so the enquiry has been hitherto fruitless, 
to discover which one it is. 

Still, however, it will be said, that it does not become 
South Carolina to submit the decision of the question to the 
Supreme Court.* Is it because she would be dishonored ? 
Assuredly if New York, and Pennsylvania, and Maryland, 
and Virginia, and other States have not been dishonored, by 
having their opinions on constitutional questions, tested by 
that Tribunal, South Carolina cannot think it any indignity 
to her. As each State in succession has appeared before 
those Judges of the Nation's appointment, the rest of the 
Union has not felt that their sister State was disgraced. In 
every other than in her own case, South Carolina has not 
considered a State disgraced, and she cannot have so little 
magnanimity, so little conscious rectitude, as to believe, 
now, that she in her turn is to appear, that she is submitting 
to any humiliation. If the Congress and the President of 
the Union, if the Legislatures and Executives and Judicia- 
ries of so many States, have not felt insulted by the thought, 
South Carolina, if she respects herself or her sister States, 
9nd the public opinion of the nation, or of the Tribunal of 



See Note M. 



46 

sister States, cannot apprehend, for she must know, that 
there is not any indignity in such an act. 

Nor has she a just ground of exception, as far as tht 
constitution and character of the Supreme Court are con- 
cerned. It is emphatically a Court of the whole People, 
and of every State, of the Government of the Union, and of 
the Government of every State. It is as independent of 
the President and Congress, as of the Governor and Legis- 
lature of South Carolina. Its members are selected from 
different States, and its bar gathers within its bounds the 
(alents and learning, the courage, virtues and patriotism of 
Ibe East and the West, of the North and the South. For 
wisdom, learning and abilities, for integrity and indepen- 
dence, for dignity and simplicity, for purity honor and pro- 
])riety, they have never been rivalled. The passions and 
prejudices that have made war against them, the envy, dis- 
appointment and sclfishuess, which have assailed them, the 
talents and learning, the political and personal influence that 
have resisted them, the [arty violence and sectional feelings, 
which have risen up for their dosiruction, have only served 
to brighten their reputation, to endear them to their coun- 
try, and to make them the pride and honor, as they have 
been the good genius of these United States. The wise and 
peaceful Spiiit of the Hall of Justice, has taken the place 
of the insatiable sword, of the cruelty and violence of war, 
and of the arrogance and ambition of the warrior. How 
honorable to this Tribunal is the fact, that only one of their 
various members (21 in number*) has been impeached in 
forty years, and it is believed, that no intelligent, dispas- 
sionate man, who values the character of his country, for im- 
partiality and justice, can read the trial of Judge Chase, with- 
out mortification. Equally honorable is it to this Tribunal, 
that they have never been suspected of yielding to bribery 
and corruption, to favor or affection, to local influence and 
sectional prejudices. The charge on the contrary is that they 
are too national : and this is precisely the charge, that adis- 

^ See Note N. 



47 

contented State ivould make, and that the rest of the Union 
would disregard. So. Carolina considered it groundless, vvhea 
advanced by Virginia, or Maryland, by Georgia, Kentucky or 
Ohio. And surely if she loves consistency and values her owii 
dignity, she will not be the author of a charge, which she her- 
self has heretofore condemned, and which she well knows 
the great majority of the Union will disregard now, as they 
always have. No one, indeed, can possibly read the judg- 
ments of this tribunal, equally beneficent and illustrious, 
and not be deeply impressed with its wisdom and learning, 
its moral courage and justice, its high sense of duty, its love 
of peace and order, its independence, dignity and patriot- 
ism. Who can read the opinions in Georgia is. Brailsford, 
and Chisolm vs. Georgia, in Vanhorne vs. Dorrance, in 
Ware vs. Hylton, in U. S. vs. Burr, in Fletcher vs. Peck, 
in Pawiett is. Clark, in Martin vs. Hunter, in Sturgis vs. 
Crowninshield, in M'Culloch vs. Maryland, in Dartmouth 
College i'5. Woodward, in Green vs. Biddle, in the Society 
for Prop, the Gos. in For. Parts vs. Wheeler, in Gibbon vs, 
Ogden, in OsborniJs. the B. U. S. in Marbury vs. Madison, 
in United States vs. Peters, in Cohens vs. Virginia, in Mar- 
tin vs. Mott, in Ogden vs. Saunders, in Brown vs. Maryland, 
in the American Ins. Cy. vs. Canter, without the deepest 
reverence, and the highest admiration, for the Judges of 
the Supreme Court, as, in an eminent degree, Patriots 
and Statesmen, as well as Lawyers and Judges.* What 
have we to fear from men, who have twice had the cou- 
rage to say to the Congress of 1789, that they had mis- 
construed the Constitution (almost of their own making) ; 
who protected an obscure Justice of the Peace, against the, 
Bnconstitutionai act of the most powerful and popular of all 
our Presidents, Thomas Jefferson ; and who condemned his 
favorite Secretary, James Madison, for obedience to his 
instructions ; who dared to shield Aaron Burr, and his al* 
ledged accomplices, BoUman and Swartwout, against the 
suspicions, the apprehensions and the odium of the Admi- 

* See Note 0. 



48 

rJistration and the People ; who shrunk not in the day of 
trial, but decided fearlessly and frankly, yet respectfully 
and calmly, against New-York and Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Kentucky and Ohio, the most powerful and influential States 
in the Union ; who distributed justice with the same inde- 
pendence and impartiality, to the helpless alien and the 
mighty Napoleon, to the humble citizen and the Corpora- 
tion, to public Officers, and to States. Neither awed by 
power, nor influenced by patronage ; not seduced by talents 
and learning, nor corrupted by wealth ; serene, courteous 
and dignified, amidst intimidation and calumny, they have 
never forgotten what was due to their own honor and useful- 
ness, or to the character of their country. From such a 
Tribunal, South-Carolina cannot, will not, say, that she ex- 
pects aught but justice. She knows that she will receive 
its full measure, and more she neither asks, nor would 
receive. 

But still the enquiry remains, how can the question be 
tried ? I answer, precisely in the same manner, that the 
constitutionality of the Embargo, of the Bank Act, of the 
Mandamus Act, of the Appeal System for revising the Judg- 
ments of State Courts, &c. &.c. has been already tried. 
Let a merchant refuse to pay the duties under the Act of 
1838, and bring aa action against the Collector for unlaw- 
fully withholding his goods, or let him give the customary 
bond, but refuse to pay it, and when sued, deny its validity. 
In either form, the question will arise. And here, we be- 
hold another familiar illustration of what has been already 
insisted on, that we can scarcely conceive any form, in which 
the Sovereign authority of the Union or of the States can be 
exercised, without aff^ecting the life, liberty or property of 
the citizen, in such manner, as to prodace a case in Court, 
in which the constitutionality of the act can be triad If the 
question bs one of power, it is a question of Constitutional 
i^awj to be determined by the Supreme Court ; but if it be 
u question oi' expediency as to the measure, or of fidelity or 
capacity as to the men, by whom it was adopted, it is then a 
question of political economy^ and must be decided by th« 



49 

feophj through theip elective franchise. His Excellency 
bas recommended this safe and peaceful course, in prefer- 
ence to any of the wild or violent expedients, that have been 
offered, from time to time. This advice is that of a dis- 
ereet, and sober minded Patriot, a friend to his country hf 
birth, and to his country by union. 

Let us now proceed to examine the Constitutionality of 
the Tariff ; not indeed as an original question of inlerp.eta* 
Hotly to be settled by an elaborate survey- of the history, 
structure and objects of the National Government, and by ^ 
careful, judicious, minute and comprehensive examinatioq 
and comparison of all the various partr of the Constitution ; 
but as a question oi fact, to be settled by the authority of 
precedents, not resting on the opinions of tho foolish and ig- 
norant, but of men, preeminent for wisdom and knoHedge ; 
^ot on the acts of unauthorised individuals, but of the ap-^ 
propriate National functienaries ; not on doubtful evidence, 
but on the clearest ; not on one or two, but on repeated 
declarations and measure» ; not on events, done in a corner, 
but openly, notoriously, before the whole nation ; not od 
expositions, thought of years after the date of the Consiitu* 
tion, but eotemporaneous and continued. 

Before, however, I enter on this part of my subject let mQ 
pause and enquire, whether the Tariff Act of 18;88, be a 
|?oZpa6Zc breach of the Constitution. If it bo such, surely 
it must be so, according to the proper mear.ing and foiqe of 
the word palpable. Will any man, who values himself on 
candor and good sense, call that a palpable violation, which 
he must admit has been maintained, both in public and pri- 
vate, by veiy many of the ablest and most excellent mea 
«f every State in the VJuion. That is palpabJe, which is 
obvious, plain, manifest, undeniable. Is that then palpa- 
ble, which has been the subject of fg.ir, intelligent, honest 
difference of opinion, ever since the coutroversy arose ? 
and such has been the fact as to the Tariff Act. A palpa- 
ble breach is one, which camiot be stated to any impartial 
intelligent man, without his at once seeing the truth of the 
position, whether he were an aH«n, or a eitixcR. XiCt 
11 



^Ottgress procure twenty miles square, for exclusive jur«* 
diction ; let them regulate descents or administrations in tt 
State ; let them lay direct taxes, according to the rule of 
uniformity, and others according to that of apportionment ;. 
let them sieze on sites in particular States for forts, with- 
out a cession ; let them appoint militia officers ; let them 
establish other than a uniform rule of naturalization and 
bankruptcy ; let them appropriate money for the army^ 
longer than for two years ; let them pass a bill of attainder, 
or an ex post facto laty ; let them lay duties on exports, and 
give a preference to the ports of one State, over those of 
another. In all such eases, no one could possibly doubt ; 
for the breach would be palpable. But is there any paral- 
lel between such instances, and the Tariff .'' If there be, 
it belongs to some scheme of grammar and criticism, of de- 
finition and interpretation, to which the people of this coun- 
try are, and, I trust, ever will be strangers. To follow 
it, can only bring upon us contempt and ridicule, not to sajr 
degradation and misery. The Tariff then is not a palpable 
breach of the Constitution : and if it be not such, then it is 
a fair subject, as a question of construction^ for reason and 
argument, and for honest difference of opinion. As then it 
is a questiuii for discussion, shall it be examined in a manly* 
temperate, candid spirit, or with violence and prejudice, 
with narrow-minded jealousy and suspicions ? If we were 
to grant that the Tariff Act of 1828, arose from the corrupt 
influence of the manufacturers, and from the vile intrigues 
of the two Presidential parties, bidding against each other, 
still we should not be jubtitied in treating a great constitu- 
tional question, otherwise than became the magnitude of the 
subject, and our own dignity. We owe it to ourselves, our 
sister States, to the People of the whole Union, and the 
people of each State, to the noble example of the Fathers 
of the Revolution, and to thai example, for good or for 
evil, ior honor or dishonor, which we must bequeathe to 
posterity, to speak and act only as becomes Patriots and 
Statesmen. The true Patriot and Statesman is grave, dig- 
nified, calm, respectful, equally fre« Trom leyity and ca- 



51 

« 

ptice, from passiou and prejudice. Let us then examiui 
this question, as becomes the subject, our country, and 
ourselves. 

Many intelligent men have doubted, whether the power 
to protect Domestic Manufactures is to be gathered from 
the Constitution ; while many have absolutely denied, that 
it can be. Assuredly, liowever, it must be admitted in 
candor, that there is no prohibition in the Constitution, like 
those respecting Congress and the States. A. 1. § 9, 10. 
It is also granted, that there is no express delegation of the 
power, as in the case of laying taxes, declaring war, pro- 
Tiding a navy. It is then a fair question, whether the power 
to protect and encourage Domestic Manufactures is involved 
4n any other power. For myself, I have no doubt, if it 
were submitted, with the history of our country, and the 
•Constitution, to an intelligent Foreigier, (Sir James M'ln- 
tosh or Mr. Brougham, for example) he would pronounce 
a decisive opinion, in favor of the Protective system, as ex- 
isting inseparably and necessarily, under the powers to lay 
duties and to regulate commerce. Let us then see what 
lias been the course of events on this subject : and I err ex- 
ceedingly, if we do not gather from them, the clearest and 
ittost satisfactory proof, that a cotemporaneous exposition, 
forty years ago, acted upon, time after time, has settled 
4he construction. 

And here the question arises, what is to be understood by 
cotemporaneous exposition. I answer, the official opinion* 
and acts of those, who administered the Government. If they 
were among the number of those, who framed the Constitu- 
tion, their opinions and acta are worth so much the more, 
Bot because they are tests of the particular sentiments, 
which they themselves may have entertained, but because they 
are ihe results of the concentrated ©pinions of the body, as 
to the properties and powers, the structure and operation 
of the system. There are some who rely, as on a species 
of sacred book, on Yates' Debates, and on the drafts of 
Constitutions, submitted to the Convention. I value thess 
but little, because they contain «o luflflcieat evidence ai t« 



5& 

the motives and reasons, and, above all, because they wei** 
not before the public at the time. Who tan pretend to as* 
sign the cauSes for each particular addition or retrenchment, 
or alteration ? Was a particular clause struck out, because 
the gmeral independent power was not intended to be givertj 
and so much of it, as was judged desirable, was already 
conferred as incidental to and inseparable from other pow- 
ers : or was it omitted because no part of the power was to 
be veiited ia Congress ? iNo one, in my judgment, can ven- 
ture to answer the (Juiestion with confidence. I believe, as 
the result of a cartful consideration of the subject, that the 
first is the correct view of the rejection of the proposal, to 
vest in Congress the general independe.it powers, to emit 
bills of credit, to appoint a treasurer, to establish military 
roads, to create corporations, to encourage manufactures) 
&,c. &.C. Cut, whatever the reasons may have been, they 
cannot be considered among tiiose, which inflaenced the Peo* 
pie at large, because they had no opportunity of seeing 
them. They can never, therefore, be regarded ac cotem- 
poraneous exposition ; vrhich consists esse'itialiy of the opi' 
nions held, and the acJ-s done, pursuant thereto, by the pub- 
lic servants, appointed to execute the pa^vers of Govern- 
ment. No one would pretei^d, in the construction of a trea- 
ty, that the private conferences oC the Ambassadors were 
to furnish rules of decision : nor, in the enquiry, what was 
the original meaning of a Law, would any one offer the opi* 
iiior,4i T)i I he committee, who prepared it. Let the treaty 
b'" ratified and acted upoa : let the lav/ be passed and re- 
du. ' io pracHce : and then^ for the first tdne, you have co- 
tesr.j)'jianeous i-Xix.sjtiOsi : su<;h as the Nations in the first) 
ano h P' r}'U> and their Public Officers, in the second in* 
staiicO) ifjust respect, as a rule for their government. 
Now, wb-ii 'A as the Conveatioo, but a Committee to draft 
the Grkat Co-Si nui ional Law op th£ Union. That 
l.-iw waf> adopted, and the proper Officers appointed forth- 
vvii' execute its proyi&ious. Let us now look at their actif 
ao'J ■.!>« iraie thosB aola by i.'ieir opiniimSf ir; the fulfilment 
oi the iluiy allotted to tii^m. If the9& coatradict Umty no 



B9 

one, it is presumed, will question, that these must yield to 
those. If on the other hand, they harmonize, it is equally 
taken for granted, that the latter will explain and enforce 
the former. 

Before I proceed to the origin and history of the Tarifr 
system, I must be excused for premising a few observa- 
tions, in my judgment, indispensable to a right understand- 
ing of the subject. Congress has power to lay duties and to 
regulate trade.* This must be done, not blindly and care- 
lessly, but in the exercise of an instructed, and enlarged 
discretion. Must not the first enquiry then be, what is the 
actual state of cocinierce, with respect to the shipping in- 
terest, and all the various trades connected with it, as to 
their materials and tools : with respect to the raw mate- 
rials, or other productions of the earth, imported from 
abroad, in their relation to the agriculture of the country : 
and with respect to foreign manufactured articles, brought 
from abroad, in their relation to domestic manufactures of 
the same description ? If this was indispensable, in laying 
the foundations of the systems of regulating commerce and 
laying duties, the same necessity and obligation have exist- 
ed ever since, and must continue to exist, as long as these 
powers and their appropriate objects shall remain. Nor is 
it sufficient to be acquainted with the actual state of things. 
The wise and considerate Legislator knows, that he must 
not only be m^-stef of the present condition, but, as far as 
practicable, he must understand the prospects of agriculture, 
commerce and manufactures, in their relations at home and 
abroad. The revenue system and the regulatiou of trade, 
must vary continually, with the changes at home and abroad, 
ia the materials and instruments of agriculture, manufac- 
tures and commerce. Let us take an illustration from the 
staple of the South. Would Congress act wisely to repeal 
the duty on foreign Cottons, and admit them to a free com- 
petition with our own, in the domestic market ? To do it, 
without considering its effect on the Cotton interest, as well 

• See Note P, 



54 

^,s oa the Manufacturer, would be worse than folly : it 
Avoulil be unjust and unwise. Congress must then levy the 
daty, so as to benefit both, if practicable, but if not, then 
so as to benefit that branch of business, which can least af- 
ford to be injured. ■ U, notwithstanding the present impost 
on foreign Cottons,* they should at a future day, threaten 
to undersell the Cotton Planter in the domestic market, 
Congress would not do their duty to the country, if they 
were not to adapt the revenue system to the protection of 
the Planter, even though his constitutional scruples should 
seal his lip?. The po ver thus to protect, and thus to change 
thfe system, on the very ground of the just*. ~ 3 and expedi- 
ency of the protection, as a national measur:?, must exist 
in every government ; and happily for us, the first founders 
of cur scheme of commerce and revenue, hava left on re- 
cord, undoubted testimony of their uuderstp.ndiig on this 
flubject. If these principles be correct, it fpHows, that the 
rfcgrce, in which the objects, on which the power is to be ex- 
ercised, the time, when changes shall be made, and their 
extent, are exclusively matters of legislatwt discretion. If 
this has been exercised ignorantly, or oppressively, or cor- 
ruptly, the only cor.siit«tional remedies arc amendment, 
modified repeal, or the removal of such i-ncompetent or faitii- 
less servants, at the next election. 

Let us BOW commence our survey. The first importanl 
fact to be r>oticed, is the large number of the members of 
the Convention, who were in the first Congress, and in the 
Judicial and Executive Departments of the New Govern- 
ment. George Washington, the President of the Conven- 
tion, was the 1st President, under the new Constitution. 
Alexander Hamilton, was his Secretary of the Treasury, 
and Edmund Randolph, his Attorney General. William 
Patterson, James Wilson, and John Blair, were appointed 
Judges. In the Senate were John Langdon, Caleb Strong, 
William Samuel Johnson, Oliver Elsworth, William Patter- 
son, Robert Morris, George Read, Richard Bassett, Pierc« 

' Se? N«te Q» 



55 

Butler, and William Few, ten in number. In the House ot 
Representatives, were Nicholas Gilmati, Elbridge Gerrjr^ 
Roger Sherman, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, 
Daniel Carroll, James Madison and Abraham Baldwin, eight 
in number. The Ten Senators were from seven States, 
and the eight Representatives from eight : a majority of the 
eleven States then formiag .'.j Union ; for Noith-Carolina 
did not accept the Constitutio.i till 21st Nov. n89, and Rhode 
Island not till 29th May, 1790. Need I add to this list the 
names of John Adams, as Vice President, of Thomas Jef- 
ferson, as Secretary of State, of John Jay, as Chief Jus- 
tice, of Richard Henry Lee, Wm. Grayson, and Charles 
Carroll, as Senators, and of Fisher Ames, Egbert Benson, 
Elias Boudinot, Wm. Loughton Smith, and doubtless many 
others, whose characters are not sufficiently known to me, 
as members of the House of Representatives? Can we 
ever hope from the government of the Union, for a sound, 
safe, practical construction of the Constitution, on any point, 
if not from such men as composed the Legislative, Executive, 
and Judicial Departments, in 1789 .'' And is it possible that 
any State, whether acting through a Legislatuie or Conven- 
tion, could judge it to be wise, to call in question their deci- 
sion, pronounced forty years ago, repeatedly acted on, and 
not questioned for more than thirty years. Such conduct 
can never be the dictate of wisdom and duty, or of a safe 
and discreet policy. 

It is to be remembered, that prior to the establishment 
©f the Constitution, the whole country was divided between 
the Federal and Antifederal parties, the former contending 
for a liberal grant of power to the General Government* 
the latter insisting, that the Union should be almost entire' 
ly dependent on the States. The former was the ^ationaly 
the lutttr the State party of that day. The small majorities, 
which accepteil the Constitution in many of the States, the 
violent opposition, which it met with from men of the first 
talents and character, the formidable minorities, who re- 
sisted it almost every where, shew that a most respectable 
portion of the community, in point of numbers, abilities. 



50 

oxperience, and influence, were hostile to the instru- 
ment ; because they regarded it asi/ie enemy of Stale rights. 
The vast nunaber of ameiidm'jnts proposed by the States, 
show how exceedingly distrustful great numbers were ol' 
the General Government, and that f^e dread of dismember- 
ment rather than a settled decisive love for the instrument^ was 
a chlrif cause of its accepta.'jce. Such was the state of things, 
that in the language of Washin^^ton, *' It was, a long time 
doubiful, whether we were to sxiTvive as an Independent 
Republic^ or decline from our federal dignity, into insignifi- 
cant and wretched fragments of empire."* It was impossible 
then for the new Government not to be watched, with the 
utmost anxiety by its friends, and the utmost jealousy by its 
enemies, in and out of Congress. 

Let us now look at the actual course of events in the Istj 
2d and 3d Sessions of the First Congress, and we shall see 
abuhdaut proof, that all the elements of a firm, enlightened, 
able opposition existed, and were called forth into action, 
CD some most important occasions. The House of Repre- 
sentatives formed a quorum 1st April, 1789, and the Se- 
nate 6th April. The bill to establish the Department of 
Foreign Affairs, gave rise, in the House of Representa? 
lives, to a very animated and able debate, on the constitu- 
tional power of the President to remove Executive Officers 
at pleasure. On th^ bill establishing the Treasury Depart-' 
)nent, a spirited and zealous controversy took plucGj on the 
alleged ground, that to permit the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury to digest and report plans, was a dangerous innovation 
on the Constitutional privileges of the House of Representatives. 
On the question, how the President and Vice President 
should be addressi;d, the two Houses dilfered. A warm 
debate rnsued in the House of Representatives, which ended 
in a Comuiiitee of Conference, who could not agree. It 
was in 1789, that twelve amendments, gathered out of the 
mass proposed by ihe States, vver(j after much consideration, 
offered to the States by Congress. At the 2d Session ftf 

* 6 Marsh. Wash. 130, 132, 3, 137, 8. 908. And See Hate R. 



57 

the 1st Congress in January, 1790, the following topics were 
discussed, with a zeal and perseverance, an ability and elo- 
quence, that proved the watchfuhiess and skill of the oppo- 
sition. The first subject debated was the appropriation of 
permanent funds for the payment of the revolutionary do- 
mestic debts : the next was the question, whether the pub- 
lic creditor should be paid the whole debt on its face, or 
only the depreciated value ; thirdly, whether, if they paid 
the whole, Congress ought not to discriminate, by paying the 
holder, only what he had actually paid, and giving the bal- 
ance to the original owner ; but there was one subject, 
which seemed, in the language of the Historian of Washing- 
ton's Administration, '' to unchain all those fierce passions, 
which a high respect for the government, and for those who 
administered it, had in a great measure restrained " 5 
Marsh. Wash. 244. It was the proposition to assume and 
fund the State debts, in common with those of the Union. 
The Constitutional authority of Congress to do so v/as ques- 
tioned: as also the justice and expediency of the measure. 
The proposition to render the debt irredeemable, was also 
violently opposed. In the third Session (which began Dec. 
1790) some important matters came up. The first was the 
proposed tax on distilled spirits, which was vehemently 
opposed ; and the next, the old National Bank, the consti- 
tutional power of Congress to charter which was denied by 
Mr. Madison, Mr. Giles, and others. The President con- 
sulted his Cabinet on the question; and though Jwffersoa 
and Randolph were against it, Washington adopted and rati- 
fied the unanswered and unanswerable argument of Alexan- 
der Hamilton. 

No man, after reviewing the labors of that Congress, 
the nature of the questions considered, the grounds of oppo- 
sition, and the distinguished abilities enlisted, can believe, 
that they could have suffered di palpable breach of the Con- 
stitution to pass unnoticed. No man can believe, that any 
assumption of power, favorable to the General Government 
and unfavorable to the States, could have been tolerated. 
No mati will dare to say, that that Congress was not emi- 
12 



nently fitted, to interpret the Constitution. With this know- 
ledge, then, of that Congress, we must say, (if we knew 
nothing of the first Tarifl'Law, but the act itself) that they 
had such motives and opportunities, and such knowledge, 
experience and capacity, as must place their construction 
on higher and more solid ground, than could be occupied by 
the unanimous opinion, if it existed, of all the intelligent 
men in the Union, at this day, to the contrary. 

Let us conae then to the proceedings of that Congress, as 
to the protective system. It is a fact, about which there 
can be no dispute, that manufacturers of various kinds actu- 
ally existed, before the year 1789, in the United States. 
For proof of this, I refer to Alexander Hamilton's Report 
on Manufactures, p. 209, wherein he states the various 
manufactures then existing, viz. of skins, iron, wood, flax 
and hemp ; bricks, tiles and potter's ware ; ardent spirits 
and malt liquors ; paper, pasteboard, and paper hangings ; 
hats ; stufFand silk shoes ; refined sugars; oils, soap and 
candles ; copper and brass wares ; tin wares ; carriages ? 
snuff, chewing and smoking tobacco ; siarch and hair powder ; 
lampblack and other painters' colors, and gunpowder. I 
refer also to the Journal of the Senate of 1789, whereby it, 
appears, that the Shipwrights of South-Carolina, (p. 38) 
and those of Baltimore and Philadelphia, (p. 46,47) peti- 
tioned ; those of Baltimore and Philadelphia praying '* that 
such restrictions might take place, as to effect a revival of 
their branch of business." The traders and wamt/adurers 
of Baltimore, the manufacturers of Boston, and those of New- 
York also petitioned, these last, praying, that such regula- 
tions and restrictions may be adopted, in relation to the im- 
portalion o[ foreign articles, as may encourage home manufac- 
lures, p. 47. The Distillers of Philadelphia also petitioned, 
and Joim M'Lellen, on behalf of the merchants and traders of 
Poitlaud, prayed, that the duly on molasses might be abo- 
lished or greatly reduced. I now refer to the Journal of the 
Honsc of Representatives : The tradesmen, manufactu- 
rers, and others of Baltimore, prayed " an imposition of 
sueh duties on foreign articles tchich can be mad&in America, 



5B 

as will give a just and decided preference to the labors of the 
Petitioners." p. 14. The mechanics and manufacturers of 
New-York said, " They look with confidence to the opera, 
tions of the new Government, for a restoration of both, 
(trade and manufactures) that they have both subjoined a list 
of such articles as can be manufactured in the State of J^ew- 
York^ and pray the countenance and attention of the National 
Legislature thereto." p. 20, 21. The tradesmen and ma- 
nufacturers of Boston, prayed ••' the attention of Congress 
to the encouragement of manufactures, and the increase of 
American shipping.^^ p 66, 57. The Shipwrights of 
Charleston, p. 16, of Baltimore, p. 32, and of Philadelphia, 
p. 50, also prayed relief, and for the advancement and in- 
crease of American shipping. The traders of Portland 
prayed relief as to the duty on molasses, p 42, because it 
would produce " pernicious consequences to manufacturers.''^ 
The Distillers of Philadelphia also suggested, that a greater 
difference in the duties on molasses and rum, than now pro- 
posed, would be of advantage to the interests of the United 
States." In the Senate, (Journ. p. 46) a Committee was 
appointed, while the second reading of the Duty Bill was 
going on, to consider the expediency of adding a clause, pro- 
hibiting the importation of goods from China or India, ex- 
cept in American ships. The promotion and encouragement 
of domestic manufactures^ was then urged upon Co>igress, 
publicly and unequivocally as a constitutional duty, and as 
called for by the general good. In other words, the Tariff 
or protective system, as we now style it, was called for in 
1789, at the outset of the neio Government. All this went 
abroad, through the press, to the nation at large. 

Let us now see how Congress acted. Mr. Madison intro- 
duced the Resolution for a duty on certain goods, wares and 
merchandize, imported into the United Slates. Th? com- 
mittee of the whole took up the subject on IJth April, and 
©n the 24th, the House entered upon it. The Bill was not 
passed till 2d July. p. 11. 24, 24, and 70. In the Senate, 
the Duty Bill, (which had come from the House of Repre- 
sentatives) was first taken up 18th May, and returned to 



60 

the House of Representatives 29th June. In both Houses 
the bill was takpn up day after day, and considered and dis- 
cuss:-d step by step Mr. Madison, 1 have said, opened the 
subjpct, and presented " the scheme of impost, which had 
been recommended by the former Congress, and had been 
sanctioned by a majority of the States, to which he added a 
general inojiosition from himself for a duty on tonnage." 5 
Marsh. Wash. 189, 190. Mr. Fitzsimmons, from Penn- 
sylvania, moved an amendment, greatly enlarging the cata- 
logue of enumerated articles, for the declared purpose of 
encouraging the productions of our country, dind protecting our 
infant manufactures, p. 190. Mr. Madison accepted the 
ame idraent. p. 190. But when the details came to be con" 
sidered, much difference of opinion existed. " The tax on 
many articles was believed to press wiore heavily on sonu, 
than on others : it was supposed also \o favor the products of 
particular States, and no inconsiderable degree of watchful- 
ness was discovered, lest those which were more populous, 
and whose manujactures were in greater progress, should 
lay protecting duties by which the industry of one part of the 
Union, would be premiums charged on the labor of another.''^ 
p. 191, Mr. Madison introduced at the same time, the 
duiy on tonnage : and in debating this branch of the subject, 
*' a great degree of sensibility was discovered, on the dis- 
crimination between the duty oa American and Foreign bot- 
toms." 3i was said, " that, iha increased tonnage on foreign 
botiotns, operated as a tax on agriculture and a premium to 
navigation.^' p iSl. 1 do not think, said Mr. Madison in 
reply, ihat there is much weight in the objections ; " but 
if there were, it may be a burden of that kind, which will ul- 
timately si<,ve us from a greater.-^ p. 190. At length, the 
debate is closed, the bill is sighed by the Speaker of the 
Hoii^e and President of the Senate, is sent to the President, 
and ifi d.jpi oved by Geoige Washington, how interesting the 
cironmstaiice, on the Fourth of July, 1789. The first act 
pass';d by th-^' new Government was to regulate the time 
3i : m.i?ner of ijdmir.isiering oaths : the second, was the act 
to Uy a duty oa goods, &c. and the third, the tonnage bill. 



61 

The preamble to the second, is the following : " Whereas 
it is necessary, for the support of Government, for the dis- 
charge of the debts of the United States, and the encourage- 
ment and protection of manufactures^ that duties be laid on 
goods, wares, and merchandizes." Thus, the first act of 
the neiv Government was to bind its members by the sanc- 
tion ofanoathj to observe the Constitution, and the second act 
was prefaced, according to the doctrine of our day, tcith a 
declaration, that they had violated their oaths, and broken the 
Constitution : and, according to the same doctrine, (I blush 
for Carolina) George Washington sanctioned that violation 
and that breach, and recorded himself, even on the Fourth 
of July, a Traitor to the Constitution ! ! 

Let us concisely state the argument, deduced from the 
foregoing views. The want of manufactures had proouced 
great evils during the Revolution. They arose and pros- 
pered somewhat afterwards, but had declined and suffered 
exceedingly under the Confederation. The manufacturers 
petitioned the new Government for protection and encou- 
ragement. Mr. Fitzsimmons, (a member of the Conven- 
tion) offers an amendment for the express purpose of pro- 
tecting our infant manufactures. Mr. Madison, (another 
member of the Convention) accepts the amendment. The 
bill is supported by them and by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Cly- 
mer, two other members of the Convention, anfl also by Mr. 
Jackson, a co-delegate with Mr. Baldwin, from Geor<na. 
Suspicions and fears are openly avowed, as to the unequal, 
unjust and oppressive operation of the bill, on some interests, 
in favor of others. The great struggle is to prevent this, by 
modifications of the duties, laid partly with an express view 
to the protection of the home manufacturer. All this passes 
openly in Congress, is published to the whole Union in the 
printed Journals and debates of the two Houses, and in the 
act itself. The whole Union acquiesces in it. This is a co- 
teoaporaneous exposition, made immediately after the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, by the proper departments ol Go- 
vernment, the Legislative and Executive ; never ques- 
tioiMsd by the Judiciary j made known to the whole Union ; 



6S 

and ratified by all the people, in the only way, in which 
they can approve, by acquiescing. It is then a construction 
of the highest authority, and cannot be questioned, much 
less denied or resisted, if we set a right value on a stable 
order of things, on a consistent government, and on a set- 
tled Constitution. Nor must we forget, that the whole 
proceeding went on the supposition, that the principle of pro- 
tcction teas constitutional : and that no one ever doubted on that 
point, in or out of Congress. 

But we can add other proofs. Washington, in his Mes- 
sage of 8th January, 1790, says, "That their safety and 
interest require, that they should promote such manufactO' 
riesy as would tend to render them independent on others for 
essential, particularly for military supplies." 1 vol. Am. St. 
Pap. p. 14. In the Report on Public Credit, (Ham. Off. 
Rep. p. 47, 48) of 9th January, 1790, he expressly re- 
commends a discriminating duty, to favor spirits distilled 
within the United States of domestic materials, beyond the 
same, distilled in the United States from foreign materials ; 
but by the act of 10th August, 1790, (2d vol. A. C. Edn. 
1815, p. 176) duties were only levied on imported spirits, 
at rates from 12 to 25 cents per gallon, which was of course 
a protection to the domestic article. By the same act 10 
per cent, was added after the last of Dec. on goods imported 
in foreign bottoms. By the Tonnage Act of 20th July, 1790, 
a very great differenee is made between American and Fo- 
reign ships, viz. 6 cents per ton are charged on Ameri- 
can ships, owned by Americans, 30 on the same owned by 
Foreigners, and 50 cents on all others. This discrimination 
was a powerful stimulus to ship building, (itself a manufac- 
ture. Ham Rep. on Man. Off. Rep. p. 209) and to all the 
manufactures depending on it, viz. in iron, copper, hemp, 
paints, oil, &c. &c. 

Again, when the controversy arose, as to the constitu- 
tionality of the National Bank, in 1790, Edmund Randolph, 
in his opinion to the President, states, among the heads of 
the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the 
power to prohibit their commodities, to impose or increasp, 



03 

the duties on them. Ham. Off. Rep. p. 133. At page 145, 
Hamilton states one object of the Laws of the United States 
to be the advancement of our manufactures. " What," says 
be on the same page, " are all the duties upon imported 
articles, amounting in some cases to prohibition^ but sa 
many bounties on domestic manufactures." Alexander Ham- 
ilton's Report on Manufactures, was made in pursuance of 
a Resolution of the House of Representatives, which re- 
ferred it to the Secretary of the Treasury, to report a pro- 
per plan or plans, pursuant to the President's recommenda- 
tion of 8th January, 1790, "For the encouragement diud 
support of such manufactories as will tend to render the Uni- 
ted States independent of other nations, for essential, par- 
ticularly for military, supplies." Jour. H. R. 1790, p. 14. 
I shall not enumerate in detail, the applications of the ma- 
nufacturers, at the 2d Session of the First Congress in 1790, 
but shall refer generally to the Journal of the House of Re- 
presentatives for those of the Rope Makers of Boston, p. 45, 
of the Cordage Manufacturers of New-York, p. 56, of the 
Manufacturers of Tobacco and Snuffof New- York and Phila- 
delphia, p. 70, of the Beverly Cotton Manufactory, p. 76, 
of the Mustard Manufacturers of Philadelphia, and of the 
Tobacco and Snuff do. of Baltimore, p. 82, of the Coach 
Makers of Philadelphia, p. 97. and of a Glass Manufac- 
tory in Maryland, p. 115 — all claiming protection and en- 
couragement. 

In pursuance of the Resolution, the Secretary presented 
his Report on Manufactures, of which, it is but saying what 
it deserves, to pronounce it an honor to the age, and still 
more to the young nation, which produced it. This paper 
was ordered by the popular branch, was presented to them, 
was published to the whole nation, and contains in every 
possible variety of form, the assertion of the power of the 
General Government to promote and encourage Manufac-^ 
tures. He begins by a sentence, which leaves no doubt, 
that no man in his day, questioned the Constitutional power 
of Congress. The expediency of encouraging Manufactures^ 
lA the United States, which was not long since deemed ven^ 



questionable^ appears at this time to be very generally admits 
ted.'''' p. 15, Off. Rep. At page 173 he states the reasons, 
why manufactures " not only occasion a positive augmenta- 
tion of the produce and revenue of society ; but contribute 
essentially to rendering them greater than they could possi- 
bly be without them." The 7th is stated at page 180 to 
be that manufactures *' create in some instances a new, and 
secure in all, a more certain and steady demand for the sur- 
plus produce of the soil." At page 209 he says, "to all 
the arguments brought to view, the impracticability of suc- 
cess in manufacturing establishments, in the United States 
it might have been a sufficient answer to refer to what has 
been already done." At page 214 he shows the importance 
of manufactures to commerce. At page 224 he proceeds to 
enumerate the means of encouragement employed by other 
countries, with a view to the formation of a better judgment, 
of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States. 
The 1st are ^^ protecting duties, on those foreign articles, 
which are the rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be en- 
couraged, p. 224. This species of encouragement is sanc- 
tioned by the laws of the United Stales Iti a variety of instances, 
p. 224. The 2d are prohibitiins oi' rival articles, of which, 
" there are examples in the Laws of the United States.'* 
p. 225. The od are prohibiting the exportation of materi- 
als. The 4th, pecuniary bounties. At page 230, he states 
that a question has been made as to the Constitutional power 
of Congress to employ tids particular means, viz, bounties ; 
but he had certainly never heard of any such objection to 
the duty system. The 5th are premiums. The 6th, thft 
exemption of the materials of manufactures, of which there 
are instances in the laws of the Union, p. 233. The 7th^ 
drawbaci<s ol the duties, imposed on the materials of aianu» 
faclures, of which ibe Laws of the United States afford in- 
stances. The 8th, the encouragement of new inventions and 
discoveries, &c. p. 235. The 9th, judicious regulations for 
the inspection of manufactures. The 10th, facilitating pe- 
cuniary remittances from place to place The 11th facili* 
tating the transportation of commodities. He proceeds t» 



6? 

consider the various classes of manufactures, which merited 
or required encouragement, (p. 243 to p 269) and which 
I have already noticed (page 58). At page 271 , he consi- 
ders the objection " of a diminution of the revenue," and 
answers, that " the interests of the revenue are promo- 
ted, by whatever promotes an increase of national industry 
and wealth." 

It is impossible for any one to read this admirable Re- 
port, and not be satisfied, that Hamilton, in his day, never 
heard a suspicion of unconstitutionality against the protective 
system, except as to a single item of meansy viz. bounties * 
and if he had not heard of it, surely it is a fair conclusion 
that Congress had not, and if they had not, the country at 
large had not. Certain it is, that among the great number 
of distinguished men, then in the public councils, in the 
Executive and Legislative Departments, (of whom 21 had 
been members of the Convention,) not one doubted on the sub" 
ject. We accordingly find that the whole Government agreed 
in their official declarations and acts, founded on the principle^ 
that to protect and encourage manufactures, under the powers to 
regulate commerce und to lay imposts, was the undoubted 
RIGHT and duty of Congress. And yet, it is such men, wn- 
questionably fit, honest and vigilant, whom Carolina now stands 
forth, before her sister States, to brand as ignorant, incapa- 
ble and faithless. If she has no regard for the great and good 
men of other States, does she remember, that she passes 
this unjust and cruel judgment, on her own Senators, Pierce 
Butler and Halph Izard, and on her own Representatives, 
Thomas Tudor Tucker, William L. Smith, (Edanus Burke,* 
Thomas Sumpter and Daniel Huger ? Is she then to swell 
the list of unnatural Parents, of ungrateful Republics 

I shall not trouble you with a tedious review of the suc- 
cession of Acts of Congress, which have asserted in various 
forms this jurisdiction of the National Government f Let 
me rather ask your attention to a series of public docu- 
ttjents, perhaps, as a class, the most extensively read and 

* See Note S. f See Note J. 

13 



66 

the most interesting to every American. I mean the Pre- 
sidents' Messages. I have already referred to Washing- 
ton's of 8th January, 1790. In the same document, he 
says, " I cannot forbear intimating to you, the expediency 
of giving effectual encouragement, as well to the introduction 
of new and useful inventions I'rom abroad, as to the exer- 
tions of skill and genius in producing them at home.''^ Pres. 
Mess. 1835, p. 36. In the Message of 8th Dec. 1790, he 
strongly recommends the ship-building interest, p. 41. In 
the Message of 8lh Dec. 1795, he says, " Our agriculture, 
commerce and manufactures prosper beyond former exam- 
ple." p. 79. In the Message of 7th Dec. 1796, he says, 
*' Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, direct- 
ed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. 
The object is of too much consequence not to ensure a continu- 
ance of their efforts in every way, which shall appear eligi- 
ble " p. 88. John Adams, in his Message of 23d Nov. 
1797, says, *' Our agriculture, fisheries, arts and manu' 
factures are connected with and depend upon it (commerce). 
The taith ot society is pledged for the preservation of the 
rights of commercial and sea-faring, no less than of the 
other citizens." p. 137. Jefferson, in his Message of 8th 
Dec. 1801, says, •' Agriculture, manufactures, commerce 
and navigation, thtj four pillars of our national prosperity, 
are the most thriving, when left most free to individual 
enterprize. Protection from casual embarrassment, how- 
ever, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." p. 175. 
In his Message of 15th Dec. 1802, he states that " to pro' 
tect the manufactures adapted to our circumstances, is on©' 
of the landmarks, by which we are to guide ourselves in all 
our proceedings.^^ p. 184 — 5. In his Message of 8th Nov. 
1804, he speaks of the " broader view of the field of Le- 
gislation," to be taken by Congress ; and states, as one of 
their enquiries, " V\ hethcr the great interests of agricul- 
ture, manufactures, commerce, or navigation, can, with- 
in the pale of your ccnstitutional powers, be aided in any of 
their relations." p. 200. In his inaugural address of 4th 
March, 1805, in speaking of the surplus income, which he 



67 

calculated on, after paying the public debt, he suggests the 
idea, that it may, hy a just repaHition among the Stales, and 
a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied, 
in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufac- 
tures, education, and other great objects, tvithin each State.^^ 
p. 203. In his Message of 2d Dec 1806, speaking of the 
same surplus, he speaks of their application to the great 
purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, 
and such other objects of public improvement, as it may be 
thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of 
federal powers." p. 227. The same idea is repeated in 
his message of 27th Oct. 1807, at page 237, but without 
any enumeration of particulars. In his Message of 8th Nov. 
1808, he removes whatever doubt may have attached to 
the four last extracts. Speaking of the suspension of foreign 
commerce, and the consequent losses and sacrifices of our 
citizens, having driven a portion of capital and industry to 
internal manufactures and improvements, he says "The 
extent of this conversion is daily increasing, and little doubt 
remains that the establishments formed and formin^^ will, 
under the auspices of cheaper materials and subsistence, 
the freedom of labor from taxation with us, and o£ protecting 
duties and prohibitions, become permanent, p. 246. Ma- 
dison, in his inaugural address 4th March, 1809, speaks of 
promoting, by authorized means, improvements friendly to 
agriculture, to manufactures, &c p. 252. Ih his Mt-ssage 
of 23d May, 1809, hesuys to Congress, " It will be worthy 
of their just and provident care, to make such ^farther alter- 
ations in the laws, as will more especially protect and foster 
the several branches o^ manufactures , which have been re- 
cently instituted or extended." p. 356 In his Message of 
29th Nov. 1809, he rejoices that the extension o( manufac- 
tures is diminishing our dependence on foreign supplies, p. 
264. In his Message of 5th Dec. 1805, he speaks of " the 
highly interesting extension of useful Manufactures. How 
far it may be expedient to guard the infancy of this improve- 
ment in the distribution of labor, by regulation of lh>i Com- 
mercial Tariff, is a subject, virhich cannot fail to suggest it- 



06 

self to your patriotic reflections." p. 269, 270. In his Mes- 
sage of 5th Nov. 1811, he says, <' A portion of your delibe- 
rations cannot but be well bestowed on ihe just and sound po- 
licy oj securing to our manufacturers the success they have 
attained." p. 281. In his Message of 7th Dec. 1813, he 
rejoices that the war had cherished and multiplied our ma- 
nufactures, so as to make us independent of all other coun- 
tries, for the more essential branches, for which we ought 
to be dependent on none." p. 31 1 . In his Message of 20th 
Sept. 1814, speaking of the enemy, he says, "In his pride 
of maritime dominion, and in his thirst of commercial mono- 
poly, he strikes with peculiar animosity at the progress of 
our navigation and manufactures." p. 319. In his Message 
of 18th Feb. 1815, he says, "There is no subject which 
can enter with greater force and merit into the deliberations 
of Congress, than a consideration of the means to preserve 
and promote the manvfactures^ which have sprung into exist- 
ence, and attained an unparalleled maturity, throughout the 
United States, during the period of the European wars. 
T/iis source of national independence and wealth, I anxiously 
recommend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardian- 
ship oJ Congress.''^ p. o2S. In his Message of 5th Dec. 1-815, 
he bestows a page on the subject, and says, " In adjustino- 
the duties on imports to the object of revenue, the influence 
of the Tariff on Manufactures, will necessarily present itself 
for consideration." p. 331. He then speaks of the "pro- 
tection due to the enterprising citizens, whose interests are 
at stake," of " selecting the branches more especially enti- 
tled to the public patronage," and says, " it will be an ad- 
ditional recommendation of particular manufactures, where 
the materials are extensively drawn from our agriculture.^^ 
p. 382. In his Message of 3d Dec I8I6, he regrets the 
*' depression experienced hy particular branches of our manu- 
factures,''^ and says, " the evil will not, howevf^r, be viewed 
by Congress, without a recollection, that mamfacturing, if 
allovved to sink too low, or languish too long, may not revive 
after the causes shall have ceased." p. 336 — 7. In the in- 
augural address of President Monroe on 4th March, 1817, 



69 

he says, " our manufactures find a generous encouragemcnl 
by the policy which patronizes domestic industry." p. 
352. " Our manufactures will likewise require the sys- 
tematit and fostering care of the Government." p. 355. 
In his Message of 2d December, 1817, he says, " Our ma- 
nufactories will require the conlinued attention of Congress." 
p. 372. In his iMessage of 17th November, 1818, he says 
that the strict execution of the revenue laws '^ has, it is 
presumed, secured to domestic manufactures all the relief 
which can be derived from the duties^ that have been impo- 
sed uipon foreign merchandize, /or their protection,. ^^ And he 
goes on to say, " the expediency of s.rantln^fui'ther protec- 
tion is submitted to your consideration." p. 387. In the 
Message of 7th Dec. 1819, he says, " It is deemed of great 
importance to give encouragement to our domestic manufac- 
tures :" and again proceeds to say, how far it may be prac- 
ticable, " to afford them farther encouragement, \>ayw^ due 
regard to the other great interests of the nation, is submit- 
ted to the wisdom of Congress." p. 405. In his Inaugural 
Address of 4th March, 1821, he says, " I am satisfied that ' 
internal duties and excises, with corresponding imposts on 
foreign articles of the same kind, would, without imposing 
any serious burthens on the People, enhance the price of 
produce, promote our manufactures, and augment the revenue, 
at the same time, that they would make it more permanent." 
p. 431. In his Message of 3d December, 1821. he speaks 
of the policy, which required the Government to refuse a 
compliance with the demands of France, because the effect 
would be " to give extraordinary encouragement to her ma- 
nufactures and productions, in the ports of the United States." 
p. 441. He also says, '" it may be fairly presumed, that 
under the protection given to domestic manufactures, by the 
existing laws, we bhall become, at no distant jieriod, a jjmnw- 
facturing countrif, on an extnmve scaie." p. 452. •' It is 
thought that the revo.nuy rLay receivri ^m augmentation from 
the existing sources, and \k i manner, to aid our manufac- 
tures.'''' " It is believtd tl-oi '■■ luoderatp additional duty, on 
45ertain articles would have that effect, v\ilhout being liable 



70 

to any serious objection." p. 454. In his Message of 3d 
December, 1822, he says, "from the best information that 
I have been able to obtain, it appears that our manufactures, 
though depressed immediately after lh« peace, have con- 
siderably increased, and are still increasing, under the en- 
couragement given them by the Tari(f of \8\S, and by subse- 
quent laws." He then refers to the " strong reasons," 
"which impose on us the obligation to cherish anil sustain 
our manufactures." p. 4G8. " On a full consideration of 
the subject, in all its relations, I am persuaded, that ?l far- 
ther augmentalion may now be made of the dities on certain 
foreign articles, in favour of our own, and without affecting 
injuriously any other interest." p. 469. In his Message of 
2d December, 1823, he says, that his views in the Message 
of 182i3, " respecting the encouragement, which ought to be 
given to owr manufactures,''^ remain unchanged. " Under 
this impression I recomojend a review of the Tariff, for the 
purpose of ad'ording such additional ■protection, to those arti- 
cles, which we arc 'prepared to manvfactvre^ or wliicli are 
more iininedialely connected with the defence and indepen- 
dence of the coualry." p. 490. 

Such is the long line of testimonies, which manufac- 
TURKS ar(^ able to pi'o.iuce, in fivor of the constitutionality 
and expcilieiuy of encouraging tliein, through the rkvknue 
system. These testimonies are found in the most interest- 
in", and most extensively read of all public documents. The 
Nation has been told, through the Presidential Messages 
from 1790 to 1823, that Manufactures ought to be protec- 
ted and encouraged by duties laid for the purpose ; and 
Congress has acknowledged the truth of the principle, the 
justice of the claim, and the wisdom of the measure, by 
numerous Acts, adopted with a view to this object. And 
yet, after repeated assertions of this right, and repeated 
exercises of this power, by the National Government, for 
more than thirty years, the Constitutional Statesmen of 
Carolina have discovered, that no such power was granted? 
or intended to be granted ; a-^id that on the contrary, ii was 
actually withheld ! ! Is Carolina willing to stultify herself, 



71 

and to stultify, or condemn as unfaithful and worthless, all 
her distinguished men,* from 1789 to 1823; and to swell 
this list of unworthy and incompetent public servants, with 
all the eminent Patriots and Statesmen, who have adminis- 
tered the Kxtciilive and I,ei;islntive Depart mmts of the 
National Government, during the same period of time ? Let 
her seriously and deliberately maintain this opinion, and as- 
sert her right to act upon her judgment, against such over- 
whelming proofs, ihat she errs, and is actually self-condemn- 
ed ; and we give to the world an example of inconsistency 
and instability, of indiscretion and ingratitude, that must 
bring down upon us the scorn and ridicule of the Statesman, 
the pity and iiulignation of the Patriot. Disguise it as we 
may, we are now denying a settled inter put alien of the Con- 
siitution, and the long cfitnblishcd autliorily of the JSTational 
Government J iunded npcn i/, and we are setting an example 
which is hostile to the solid and sale principles of interpre- 
tation, to the stability and order of our Institutions, and to 
the practical wisdom, sound discretion, and enlightened sense 
of duty, with v\h'ch the Executive and Legislative Admin- 
istration ol the Union should ever be regarded. 

The view, which I have thus presented of the Tariff 
scheme, justilles me (1 (latter myself,) in the position, that 
the cons litiUicna lily of the jirolective system is no longer a 
question of construction ; but is really, when rightly consid- 
ered, merely a (jurstion o( fact. Under this asprct, I have 
endeavored to exhibit it : and I irunt that I have not been 
unsuccessful. 1 do indeed trust in this ; because I consci- 
entiously btrlieve, that when this day of excitenitnt and ap- 
prehension shall have passed away, as assuredly it must, 
(like its predecessors in the East and the West, in the 
JNorth aiid the South,) Carolina will acknowledge, that the 
JSTalional Governmcnl is vested with constitutional pouer, to pro- 
tect and encourage domestic manujaclures, through the medium 
of the revenue system ; that so to protect and encourage, that 
branch of industry, is not an usurpation of power ; though, it 

» See Note U. 



7S 

so to do, be impolitic, it would be an abuse of power, or a 
neglect of duly .* and either would be remediable only 
throu2;h the elective franchise. 

I come now to the lieeply interesting, delicate, and im- 
portant question, What is State Sovereignty ? In what re- 
lation do the States, as members of the Union, stand to the 
General Government ? What redress has the State, in the 
existing crisis, acting on her opinion, that the Tariff of 1828, 
is unconstitutional ? 

Let us suppose a State to exist by itself, apart from and 
unconnected in any way with others. Such would be a So- 
vereign State ; yet it is obvious, that the only sovereignty, 
which it could be considered as possessing practically, is 
domestic sovereignty. Foreign or international sovereignty 
could only arise out of its relations to ether States. Let 
these grow up, and imniediately the law of nations attaches 
to them, treaties, and various acts of international inter- 
course result from them, and the solitary State becomes a 
member of the family of Nations. In such a situation, the 
foreign or international sovereignty is called forth and deve- 
loped in its full perfection. Such a State is then a Sove- 
reign State, in the highest and most comprehensive sense of 
the word, enjoying all the powers and authorities, arising 
from its international constitutio.j under the Law o( J^ations, 
and all those, which spring from its local constitution, under 
its domestic polity. Such is the foreign, and such the do- 
mestic, sovereignty of a State. The combination of both 
constitutes the highest order of sovereignty. Precisely 
in that degree, in which either is curtailed, is the one or 
the other species diminished, and impaired. Take either 
away entirely, and the results will be of immense conse- 
quence. Let the world of nations remain ; but let one of 
them transfer the whole of its foreign sovereignty to ano- 
ther, and the result is, that this, in relation to the rest of 
nations, becomes the only representative o^ that ; and th^ 
ceases to be a nation, in respect to the rest of nations, under 
the law of Nations. 

Let us take an illustration from European History : Whet 



73 

&tlan(l became united to England, under the Act of Union, 
and the separate Kingdoms of England and Scotland became 
one Kingdom, under the style of the Kingdom of England, 
and the British King became ihe Representative of both, 
as to the /oref^n jurisdiction of Peace and War, of Treaties, 
of sending and receiving Ambassadors, &c. &c. the conclu- 
sion cannot be resisted, that England and Scotland separately 
disappeared from the list of nations ; and that while that 
Union :>hall subsist, they must continue entirely unknown 
to the world of nations, separately considered as England 
and Scotland. Neither can do any act, in relation to a 
foreign government, nor a foreign government any, in 
relation to either, except through the medium of the 
British King, as the international Representative of 
both England and Scotland. Hence, each of them is to- 
tally stripped of all the juiisdictiou of foreign sovereign- 
ty, and having no persona standi in the Court of Nations, 
ceases to be a nation, in the international sense of the term, 
the only sense known to the Law of Nations. 

Let us cany our illustration a seep farther. Suppose 
that Scotland were dissatistied uith the British Govern- 
ment, and chose to allege against the British King an usur- 
pation of power, not sanctioned by the mutual compact : 
that all the Departments of the common Government sus- 
tained the views of the British King, who insisted ihn he 
was right, and would not yield. W hat redress couid Scot- 
land have ? She would have two remedies, one out o/the 
law of nations, and one under that law. Tde first would be 
to petition for a redress of grievances ; to obtain, if she 
could, a modification of the Act of Union ; to try the ques- 
tion, if it admitted of that form, under the compact, before 
a judicial tribunal ; but if these failed her, she could have 
no farther redress, out o/the law of nations : and her only 
remaining remedy would be to make open war against 
England. This might be done, either lor the purpose of 
obtaining the desired redress, still acknowledging the Union 
to subsist, or for the purpose of establishing her independ- 
ence, declaring the Union no longer to subsist. It is too 
14 



74. 

'clear, to need either reasoning or authority, that in the first 
case, by her own admission, she could not be known to other 
nations, and they could view the war in no other light, than 
as a rebellion of a part of the nation against the nation itself, 
as known to them and represented solely by the King. It 
is equally clear, on the settled principles of public law, that, 
in the second casCy other nations could only view the contest 
as a civil war, in which they had no concern, and in which 
they could not interfere. They could not do any act, in 
relation to Scotland, directly ; though they might indirectly, 
but stili through the medium of the King, as in the instance 
of mediation. But other nati-ons could not recognize Scot- 
laud, or have any nautual dealings with her as a nation, ex- 
cefpt in three cases : First, where the British Govern- 
ment, either by force or by compact, acknowledged her in- 
dependence ; secondly, where Scotland had so efTectually 
vindicated her cause, as to have successfully resisted the 
British power, though the contest was not closed. In this 
case, another nation might recognize her independence, if 
she could be regarded as de facto independent ; but then 
the British Government would have a right, exercising its 
own discretion, to regard it as an act of unjustifiable inter- 
ference, and hostility, and might declare it just cause of 
war. The third would be, where France for instance^ 
should choose to interfere at the outset, and treat with Scot- 
land as independent. That would be an act of hostility, and 
good ground of war to the British Government. Hence, I 
conclude, that Scotland, after the Union, could not be known 
to other nations, until she had separated, in a like peacea- 
ble manner, by consent ; or by force — de jure, where the 
British Government acknowledged her independence ; de 
facto, where she had substantially maintained it. If by con- 
sent, or by force, de jure, she might be regarded as a na- 
tion by another country, lawfully and without the risk of be- 
coming a parly in the war; but if by force, de facto only, 
that could be the result only of a fair trial of mutual strength, 
and €ven then a third power would still ipcur the hazard of 
being regarded as an enemy. 



75 

Ft would be in vain for Scotland to urge, that she had 
been once independent, and that she had reserved to herself 
the whole of her local legislation, and domestic sovereignty, 
and all the power, which she had not parted with under the 
compact. The answer would be, that she had retired vo- 
luntarily from the society of iwtions, and had constituted an 
international representative to take her place, de jure andde 
facto, among nations : that she retained nothing of her inter- 
national character, and therefore was a stranger entirely un- 
known to nations. To them, it would be immaterial whether 
the had parted with all or with none of her domestic sove^ 
reignty, whether she had sunk into a province, or still con- 
tinued sovereign as to all matters of internal policy. Equally 
immaterial would it be, what was her former, and what her 
present form of government. The Law of Nations could 
efraw no distinction between the Monarchy, the Aristocracy, 
and the Republic. The txternal relations only could be 
(Considered. The internal must be disregarded. 

Let us now look at the state of things in our own country.. 
There never was a time, when the States were regarded as 
separate nations by other nations. The United States, evea 
before the Articles of Confederation, were the Nation, 
as to the rest of the world. The Colonies appeared before 
the world as thirteen separate independent States, by the 
Declaration of Independence ; but no international act of any 
consequence, by virtue of the Foreign sovereignty was ever 
done by any one State as to European nations, or by these as. 
to that. Practically, Europe knew nothing of the several 
States. She only knew the Confederacy of States. This 
was still more manifest after the confederation ; for then all 
the national branches of the foreiga sovereignty were vested 
in Congress, as the international representative, as indeed 
they had been, in all material respects, before. But, when 
the National Constitution of 1789 was adopted, beyond all 
question, under that, every atom of foreign sovereignty is 
stripped from the States, and vested in the new govern- 
ment. Every attribute of international existence is parted 
with : and no State can ever be repossessed of any one of 



16 

them, but by a successful civil war, or the consent of the 
rest to a dissolution of the Union, and the restoration of 
this ceded authority to the State. 

South-Carolina, practically., never was known as a nation. 
The very idea would excite a smile, in every Cabinet of 
Europe. Theoretically, as well as practically, she is now, 
beyond all doubt, utterly unknown, by her own act, under . 
the Constitution of 1789. It would be idle to talk to Euro- 
pean nations about reserved rights. The answer would be, 
we know you not. We know the Government of the United 
States : the President, as the head of the Diplomatic De- 
partment ; the President and Senate, as the Treaty making 
authority ; the President, Senate and House of Represen- 
tatives, M the war-declaring power. These we know, and, 
as represented by them, we know the Ujmted States as 
ONE J^ation. But who are you ? Your own act justifies 
and requires us to regard you as not a nation, as only a part 
of one.* 

Let us follow out the consequence of these vievys, by 
considering what means South-Carolina has for redressing 
herself, under the Law o/Nalioas. The answer is — None, 
absolutely none at all ; unless she obtains the consent of the 
Union to her independence, or forces it from them by war, 
or estabjibhes it de facto, by a successful war, without any 
recognition. Now, each of these things is equally impos- 
sible. The other States will uot consent '• and I presume, 
the proudest Carolinian cannot believe, that she could 
establish her in<iependence, in a war against the Union, if 
both parties, as would be the case, in such an event, should 
do theii best. 

Let us go on. South Carolina insists that Congress has, 
violated the compact She resolves, in any capacity, that 
you please, by her Legislature, by a Convention, by popu- 
lar meetings throughoui th /•. State, that she will not sul^mitj 

* " li is onli, in our united character, that we are known as an empire, 
that our ind- j " ience it, acknowleil^ ;i, that our power can be regarded, or 
our credit supp'.d.'J abroad." Washington's Letter of 8th June, 1783, t* 
the Governors of the States. 6 Marsh. Wash. p. 48. 



T7 

that the Tariff Is and shall be a nullity, within her limits ; 
that not a dollar of revenue shall be collected under it ; that 
goods imported, shall be received by the Merchant, withoiit 
the formalities of the Custom House, and, in the style of 
Pennsylvania, in her act against the District Court of the 
United States, that the parties, refusing obedience to the 
laws of the Union, shall be protected by the State Execu- 
tive. Be it so, the Union can regard her in no other light 
than as a refractory, rebellious member, resisting the laws 
of the Union ; and liable, therefore, under the compact, to 
have her own, or the Militia of any other State, marched 
into her territory, to execute the laws of the Union, as was 
done in the insurrection of Shays, and the Whiskey insur- 
rection. But the Union has no occasion for any such mea- 
sures. She needs not to draw a sword, or march a single 
soldier into her territory. To Carolina it would be said, 
" We have made a law, which we, and the great body of 
the States and People, regard as constitutional. You say 
it is not so, and resist the supreme law of the land. You 
have seized our Custom House : you have expelled our offi- 
cers : you have denied your obligations to us : you have 
declared Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, free ports ; 
where all nations may trade at pleasure, in violation of our 
laws. We, therefore, pronounce you, in the presence of 
the world, an outlaw from the Confederacy, and rebels 
against the nation. But we shall not strike a blow, nor 
shed a drop of blood. We shall blockade your ports. We 
shall place our troops along the frontiers of Carolina, to cut 
off her intercourse with the neighbouring States." Then, 
like the girdled tree, Carolina must perish. Foreign na- 
tions cannot notice her, or treat with her, without a pal- 
pable violation of the international rights of the Union. She 
can have on her seaboard neither exportation nor importa- 
tion ; nor can she along her frontiers, without smuggling. 
Of no avail then are her free ports and Custom Houses, 
and revenue system. 

But the Union need not go even thus far. All that is ma- 
terial for them to do is, to cut off all communication by sea, 



7S 

with foreign powers, and Carolina becomes the reservoir 
to feed the Commerce of North-Carolina and Georgia. It 
will be the direct interest of North-Carolina and Georgia to 
have Carolina precisely in this situation ; for their merchants 
would do all the export and import business of South-Caro- 
lina. And would we trust to the magnanimity of Georgia 
and North-Carolina rn such a case i^ I at least, would not ; 
for I never will confide in the generosity of a sister State, 
when I know that an immense interest is in opposition to 
that feeling. In the mean lime, the Government of the 
Union would persist in her TariflT system, and Carolina 
would have to add the expense of dependence on her neigh- 
bours, (to say nothing of the humiliation) to the duties al- 
ready existing. 

Let the Union station their ships alon^ our coast, let them- 
declare us in a state of rebellion, and it is obvious, on the 
principles already explained, that no foreign power can no- 
tice us ; but at the peril of hostilities with the United States. 
There is but one nation that could think of such a result, for 
a moment. But what could induce even England to side 
with Carolina, to break the blockade, to trade with a part 
of the nation, against the authority of the rest ? No suffi- 
cient motive could be assigned for E igland thus to become 
the enemy of the United States. Mer commerce would 
still enjoy all the benefits which it now enjoys, v«rhereas the 
whole commerce with America would be cut off, if she should 
interfere. The question would not be, whether she should 
exchange the Tariff restrictions, now of force in Carolina 
ports, for none at all, or very light ones in the same ports ; 
but whether she should break up all her intercourse with 
all the rest of the Union, for the sake of very doubtful ad- 
vantages in the ports of Carolina. Besides, would not Eng- 
land see, that the instant she acted that part by us, the Uni- 
ted States would immediately act the same part by discon- 
tented Ireland .'' Would she exchange Ireland for Carolina, 
and that would be the reward of her folly ; and the amount 
of her gain and her loss ? 

Let us now look back on a preceding state of the caie.' 



T9 

Carolina has declared the Tariff a nullity, she has resisted 
the Laws of the Union, she has ^iezed the Custcm House, 
and forte, and dispossessed the Officers of the Union. Con- 
gress has declared her in a state of rebellion : and her coast 
is beset with the navy of the Union. Is there any man so 
b ereft of his senses, as not to know, that such a state of 
things would produce tremendous evils to Carolina, totally 
separate from the horror of war ? Are we prepared to esti- 
mate the instantaneous depreciation of property, the fall of 
Dank stock, the luinous state of private credit, and the 
freezing point, to which Bank credit, and Bank bills would 
immediately sink ? If it concerned only the foreign creditor, 
or the creditor of other Stales, perhaps you might think it 
a light matter ; but there is not a creditor in tie State, who 
would not receive a deadly blow, yet not more deadly to him, 
than to the debtor. What becomes then of your Bank of the 
State ; with its capital of almost nothing but debts ? What 
becomes ©f your Financial Department, and of your resour- 
ces ? Do you think that the public debt of South-Carolina 
would sustain no depreciation ? Those, who look at such 
events with the eye of experience, know w hat a shock it 
would sustain. Yes, they know, that even the hallowed 
gift to the family of Jefferson would not be spared by the 
remorseless fiend of Civil Discord. 

Carolinians have been fond cf ascribing to their Northern 
brethren an intermeddling spirit, on the subject of slavery. 
And will Carolina thus take off the only restraint, now im- 
posed, viz. that of the Union P Is she afraid of the mis- 
guided philanthrophy, of the absurd notions of speculative 
right, of the fanaticism, which she indignantly attributes to 
the North, and even to the Middle States } And will she 
afford them the golden opportunity of doing ten times the 
mischief they can now do .-' 

But let her add the horrors of a War to all the above 
enumerated evils. Does she not see, that the first effect 
is a still more dreadful depreciation of all property, of pub- 
lic and private credit .-* Will not immense taxes be indispen- 
table, and that with very reduced means of paying ? Must 



so 

not your military force be great, and a dreadful expens'e td 
you ? Must not your Government necessarily become a very 
strong, almost a military Government, in its Executive De- 
partment ? Must not the rights of property, and of personal 
liberty be continually endangered ? Must not your Courts of 
Justice be shut, because you must interfere between the 
debtor and the creditor ? And do we believe that, in this 
state of things, we incur no risk of servile insurrection? 
At all events, is it not obviously what must be guarded 
against, by expensive precautions ? Let us add to all these 
horrors, the state of feeling, in every man who has feeling, 
and especially in the Father and the Mother, when they be- 
hold the Son, whom they had trained to peace, become the 
victim of War, and him, whom they had taught to love and 
defend the Union, called forth to tight against it ? 

If the matter comes to the extremity of War, must not 
Carolina seelc assistance abroad ? Can she hope to stand sin- 
gle-handed against the power of the Union ? In vain may she 
boast of the justice of her cause, or rely on the chivalry of 
the South. These will not provide her with arms, nor 
clothe and pay her troops, nor raise lier taxes, nor save her 
credit, nor stay the depreciation of all property, nor calm 
the gloomy fears, that must beset her. I value a clear con- 
science and a gallant spirit, in a good cause, as much as any 
one. But are we so blind as not to see, that there will be 
an equally clear conscience, and gallant spirit, in as good a 
cause, on the other side ? Let it be our consolation" and 
strength, that wc fight against Usurpers ? And will it not be 
theirsj that they fight against Rebels ? Let us not deceive 
ourselves, with the idle supposition, that they will feel, that 
ice are right, and they wrong. Even now, they have no doubt 
of the reverse. And will they doubt less, when passion shall 
aggravate their feelings towards us, when ambition, and the 
pride of opinion, and the cotisciousness of power, and the in- 
dignation of resistance, shall turn our representative into our 
enemy, our guardian into our destroyer ^ 

Nor let us shut our eyes against the inevitable consequence 
pf foreign dependence. And do we desire again to become ' 



V 



81 

a British 'province, or a miserably degraded Ally of th« 
British Empire ? One or the other must ensue ; for to for- 
eign aid we must apply, aiid to no one but England could 
we apply. If she should decline, we are crushed by the 
Union : if she should agree, we become a weak, dishonored 
dependant of British power, whether as an Ally or a Pro- 
vince. And what might we expect to be the result ? As- 
suredly, that whenever it suited England to close the war, 
she would abandon us, exhausted and ruined, to the will, 
not of sister States, and a parent Government, but of an 
exasperated enemy. Adieu then to liberty and independence, 
to peace and prosperity. What could we expect but to be 
treated as a conquered country ? But if we should be re- 
ceived back into the Union, on the most favorable terms, 
surely it would be a condition, inexorably demanded, thai 
South Carolina should pay the War-Debt^ and should acknow' 
ledge by a solemn public act, that she had been a rebel 
against the lawful authority of the Union, ^/m/ #ue herselp 
had broken the national compact. 

Let us not be told, that such things as these can never 
happen. They will not, if Carolina is discreet and wise : 
if she is content with expressing her opinions, but proceeds 
not to acts ; and especially, if she does nut resist the taxes of 
the Union But let her add acts to sentiments, and resistance 
to denunciation ; and no human power can guarantee her, 
against all the fatal consequences I have developed. Nop 
let Carolina deceive herself with the idea, that she may 
proceed, as far as she pleases ; but that the Union will not 
follow her step by step, nor even anticipate her measures, 
after a while. Let her only make it the case of another 
State, and be judged by her own judgment, in that case. 
Suppose Connecticut had denounced and resisted the em- 
bargo. Would not South Carolina have looked upon the 
precedent, as eminently hostile to the dignity, authority, 
solidity and permanence of the Union ? And would she not 
have expected the National Government to act with promp- 
titude and energy, the instant the state had developed her 
settled purpose of resistance .■' South Carolina would have 
16 



82 

so judged in the case of another State : and shall she judge 
otherwise in her own ? When New England was perishing 
under the anti-commercial syistem of Mr. Jefferson, like the 
withered arm of Jeroboam, South Carolina disregarded her 
remonstrances and threats : and bade her suffer ; because 
the commoH authority had so ordained. And if New En- 
gland had proceeded to acts, South Carolina would have pro- 
nounced the National Government, imbecile and cowardly, 
faithless to its trusts, ignorant of its power, and miworthy of 
its rights ; if the Nation's arm had not vindicated the laws 
and honor of the Nation. And does Carolina expect the rest 
of the Union, to be less disposed to vindicate by force, if sh© 
shall compel ihem, the rights and honor of the Nation, than 
she would be ? Beyond all question, it must be done ; if a 
State shall actually resist the laws of the Union, whether 
that State be Carolina or Connecticut, Tennessee or Mary- 
land. Let us then look at the legitimate consequences of 
her act : and not shut our eyes against them, until — to pro- 
ceed be rebellion, to retreat be dishonor. Nor let us 
shrink from the terra rebellion, which we should not hesitate 
to appi) to Connecticut or New Jersey. To resist the laws 
of the Union is rebellion, whatever State be guilty of the 
act : and she must expect to be called a Rebel, precisely 
under the same circumstances, which would justify her in 
charging rebellion on another State. Carolinian as I am, I 
must not, as a citizen ojthe Union, say less of my own State, 
than 1 would of another ; I must not, through false delicacy, 
or a criminal timidity, withhold from the conduct of Carolina, 
the very name, which belongs to it : I must not be unfaith- 
ful to the Union, lest I should be accounted disrespectful 
to her. 

1 have thus endeavored to follow out, through all its prin- 
cipal consequences, the surrender oj her foriign or interna- 
tional iHovereignty by Souih-Carolina. Let us now return to 
the j oiut, whence we set out, viz. that relinquishment, and 
consider the true character of State Sovereignty, under the 
Constitution of the Union ; for there only can we hope to Jind 
it. If the State had yielded nothing, but the jurisdiction 



•ver international subjects, it is obvious, that she will have 
lost the most prominenl: and important attributes of sove- 
reignty ; because she ceased to be a nation, under the law 
of nations. But she yielded a large and most important 
portion of the highest attributes of domestic sovereignly. She 
gave up the power to coin money, to emit bills of credit, to 
attthorise any tender but in gold and silver, to pass bills of 
attainder, ex post facto laws, or those which impair the 
obligation of contracts, or to grant any title of nobilKy. She 
agreed to lay no duties on imports or exports, but with the 
consent of Congress, (except for the execution ot hev inspec- 
tion laws, and then they must be not only necessary and pro- 
per, but ABSOLUTELV neccssarij) and even when laid, she 
agreed, that her laws should be subject to the revision of 
Congress, and that the revenue should go into the JSational 
Treasury. She agreed to lay no duly on Tonnage, to keep 
neither troops nor ships of war during peace, to make no 
compact or agreement with another State, or with a foreign 
power, nor to engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in 
^uch imminent danger as to admit of no delay : and, except 
in the last instance for the reason there given, she agreed to 
do none of these things, but with the consent of Congress. Nor 
is this all. She gave to Congress the power, after 1807, 
to prohibit forever the importation of Slaves : She agreed, 
in a controversy with a sister Slate, to be bound by the 
judgment of the Supreme Court : That Congress «hould 
have power to prescribe rules to her Courts, as to admitting 
the records of another State. She has stripped herself of 
the power to place the citizens of another State on any oth^r 
footing, than her own. She has bound feerself to deliver up 
fugitives from justice, and fugitive slaves, servants or ap- 
prentices. She has agreed not to divide herself into /wo 
States, nor to unite herself with another in forming one new 
State, without the consent of Congress. 

Nor is this all. She has not required that the Judges and 
other Officers of the t/nion should be bound by oath to sup- 
port her Constitution and laws ; but she has agreed, that all 
ker Officers should be bound by oath to support thoie of th» 



S4> 

Union. And, moreover, she has agreed that the Constitu- 
tion, Treaties and Laws of the Union should be of paramount 
authority in her own Courts, held by her own Judges, 
agaiiist the requisitions of ^er nwn Constitution and Laws. 

Nor is this all She has yielded the regulation of com- 
merce with her sister States : the power to regulate the 
value of domestic and foreign coin ; to fix the standard of 
weights and measures ; to grant copy rights and patents ; to 
organize, arm and discipline her own militia ; to natural- 
ize, and to pass bankrupt laws : and her own laws for the 
election of her representatives and Senators in Congress, are 
subject to the revision of the Union, with the single excep- 
tion of the place for choosing Senators. 

Ample and extraordinary as all these missions are, even 
these do not complete the list of her surrender^ of sovereign- 
ty. She has subjected the persons of her cu.7f!ns to the 
military control of the President, for purposes external to 
herself, viz. to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress 
insurrecli^m, and to repel invasion iu another State.* She 
has subjected the whole of the property of her citizens, to 
the taxing power of Congress; and agrees, W their law con- 
flicts witli her^s, this shall yield to that. She has empowered 
the Union to establish Courts, not only of international, but 
•f domestic jurisdiction, within her limits, and these Courts, 
in numerous instances, try her citizens, dispose of their pro- 
perty, without any regard to her laws, cxc^^pt as Con^.-ess 

• Charles Pinckney, in his observations on his plan of Hernmenf, says, 
at page 21 : " Indeiiendeni of our being obliged to rely on ilie Vilitia, as a 
teciiriiy against Foreign Invasions, or Domestic Convulsions, tliey are ia 
fact the only adequate force the Union possess, if any should be requisite, to 
oerct arefractory or negligent mtmber, and to carry the ordinances, and dc' 
crees of congress into txtcution. This, as well as the cases I have alluded to, 
will sometimes make it proper to order the Militia of one State into another." 

Mr. M'Duffie, in his Numbers against the Georgia " Trio," says, at page 
17—" I should suppose, therefore, that no professional man could hesitate in 
saying, that a forcible opposition to the judgment of the Federal Court, 
founded upon an act of congress, by whatever State authority that opposi- 
tion might be authorised, would be the very case which the Convention had 
in view, when they made provision for " cailiog forth the milUia lo exeeute 
the laws of the Vnion." 



85 

might choose to adopt the Di, and are totally independent of' 
her. Thus, then, the State has stripped herself of sove- 
reignty in two ways — 1st, by transfer, and 2dly, by prohibi' 
tion. Under the first head, she has vested in the Ut ion, all 
her international or /oreig-n jurisdiction : all the regulation* 
of trade with her sister States, and with the Indians ; in a 
word, every thing common to herself and the other States. 
Under the second head, she has renounced (never to be re- 
sumed but by an amendment of the National Constitution) 
large and important portions o( domestic sovereignty, and has 
admitted the Government of the Uiion to a cojicurren/ juris- 
diction with her own State authorities, over extensive and 
valuable branches ot local jurisdiction, such as taxes, cus- 
toms, courts, the militia, &c. : and even in such cases of 
4io-equal right, she grants that her laws and not those of the 
Union shall give way, if they conflict. And to cap the cli- 
max of concessions to the Union., and of restrictions on herselj] 
she binds all her officers under oath, to support the Union, 
and lays down her State sovereignty, in all its Departments, 
Executive, Legislative and Judicial, at the feet of the Con- 
stitution, Treaties and Laws of the Union, as the Supreme 
Law of the Land. 

Such is the faithful picture of State sovereignty, as drawn 
by Carolina herself, in the Constitution of her own adoption, 
and which she is bound to obey. And is she then a Sove- 
reign State, in any proper, comprehensive sense of the 
word .-• Consider the gigantic powers vested in the Union, 
coextensive with the world, embracing every nation under 
heaven, regulating a commerce, that traverses every sea, 
levying armies and building navies, pervading every State 
in the post office and judicial establishments, in taxes, cus- 
toms, and excises, in the naturalization, bankruptcy and 
militia systems. Consider that the National rulers can sus- 
pend the Commerce of the State, can prohibit both export- 
ation and importation, can march armies through her, can 
establish camps vrithin her, can involve her in war,* and 

* "Xbcse [powers/' (to lay aad collect taxei, &c.) " are granted in the 



keep her in it, and all this against the unanimous vote of htr 
delegation in both Houses of CoiigresSi and against the unan- 
imous remonstrance of all her Poopie ? Is this Fiction ? 
Is \t Rhetoric 1 No — It is Historical truth: it is ConUHu' 
tional matter of fact. And is South-Carolina, then, a Sove- 
reign State ? I answer No — The Union is emphatically 
Sovereign, not South-Carolina. The Union is endowed 
tvith J^ationaly the State has only retained a Corporate So- 
vereignty. The Union is vested with all Sovereignty, fo- 
reign and domestic, suited to its ends : the State has only a 
iocaZ jurisdiction, suited to its ends, within its own corporate 
limits ; and that, subject in many important particulara, to 
the local authority of the Union, within the very same limits. 
The Union is uncontrollable by the State, the State is sub- 
ject to the Union. And shall we still delude ourselves with 
the notion of Stale Sovereignty ? Let those, who do so, 
read the language of Charles Pinckney, in his Observations 
on the Plan of Government, submitted by him to the Con- 
vention. He is speaking of the necessity of a '}^vising pow- 
er as to the acts of the States : and considering it as a ques- 
tion oi political expediency^ he proposes that Congress should 
have this power. As the Constitution now stands, the same 
end is attained, as far as desirable, by vesting the superin- 
tending power, in the J^ational Judiciary, as a matter of 
Constitutional Law. Mr. Pinckney says : 

*' I apprehend the true intention of the States in uniting, 
js to have a Hrm National Government, capable of efTectu- 
g^Uy executing its acts, and dispensing its benefits and pro- 
most genernl ami unlimiipil terms. Uj)oii (he discretion of Congress in " lay- 
jng and collecting taxes," and in '' raising ami supporting armies," tliere are 
no reslrictiont, but those imposed by nature. Congress may push these pow- 
ers to the utmost verge, indicated by the physical capacity of the country. 
They may, upon the slightest occasion, and for the most unwise, iinprovideot, 
and wicked ends, d.aw from the people (of the •' States" too,) the ultermott 
farthing, that can be spared (roni liieir suffering families, to fill the national 
coffers ; and call out the last man that can be spared from raising the necessa- 
Tits of life, to fill the natiunul armies, andjighl the battles of ambitious rulers^ 
And all this, however inexpedient, unjust and tyrannical, they can do, with- 
«ui transcending the limits of their constitutional authority." 



87 

tection. In it alone can be vested tho&e powers and prerog- 
atives, which more particularly distinguish a Sovereign Stale^ 
The members, which connpose (he superintending Govern- 
ment, are to be coiiHideiCii ir.erely as parts of a great whole^ 
and only svffirrd to rrtain the powers necessary to the ad- 
ministration ci their Stale systems. The idea, which has been 
so long and falsely entertained of each being a Sovereign State, 
must be given up ; for il is absurd to suppose there can be 
more than one Sovereignty within a Government. The States 
should retain nothing more than that mere local legislation, 
which, as Districts of a General Government, they can exer- 
cise, more to the benefit of their particular inhabitants, than 
if it was vested in the Supreme Council ; but in every for- 
eign concern, as well as in those internal regulations, whicb 
respecting the whole, ought to be uniform and national, the 
States must not be suffered to interfere.''^ p. 1 :2. 

"• Whatever views we may have of th(i importance or re- 
tained Sovereignty of the States, be assured they are visionary 
and unfounded., and that their true interest consists in con- 
centering as much as possible, the force and resources of the 
Union in one siiperintending Government, where alone they 
can be exercised with effect In granting to the Federal 
Government certain exclusive national powers, you invest 
all their incidental rights. The term exclusive involves 
every right or authority necessary to their execution." p. 14- 

" Most of the States have neglected altogether, the per- 
formance of their Federal Duties, and whenever their stnt^ 
policy, or intera^ls prompted, used their retained Sovereignty 
to the injury and disgrace of the Federal Head. Nor can any 
other conduct be expected, ichile they are suffered to consider 
themselves us distinct Sovereignties, or in any other light, than 
as parts of a common Government. The United States, can 
have no danger so much to dread, as that of disunion ; nor, 
has the Federal Government, when properly formed, any 
thing to fear, butjromthe licentiousness of its members.''^ p. 15. 

" In short, from their example, (of the Ancient and Mo- 
dern Confederacies) and from our own experience, there-, 
can be no truth more evident than this, that unless our Go- 
vernment is consolidated, as far as is practicable, by retrenching 
the State authority, and concentering as much force and vigour 
in the Union, as are adequate to its exigencies, we shall soon be 
a divided, and consequently an unhappy people." p. 17. 

So much for the sentiments of Mr. Pinckney, one of the 
members of the Convention : one of the founders of the 
Constitution, and the man, whose draft resembled uauch 



88 

more (if we judge by the copy annexed to Vates' Debates) 
the present Constitution, than those of Randolph, Hamilton, 
or Patterson Let us now hear the sentiments of George 
M'Dutfie, the able and eloquent vindicator of Internal Im- 
provements^ against the South-Carolina radical doctrine of 
strict construction. His Pamphlet, already referred to, 
written against the Georgia Radicals in 1821, is prefaced 
by an advertisement, ascribed to the late Representative 
from Colleton and Beaufort, and which contains a just and 
eloquent eulogium on the style and sentiments. In the Pre- 
face, p. 2, speaking of the argument of the radical Trio, in 
favor of '' a strict and literal construction of the Constitu- 
tion," he says, " To these views, the Triumvirate added, 
the tocsin of " State Sovereignty," a note, which has 
been sounded in the Ancient Dominion with such an ill-omened 
blast, but with no variety, by them, to relieve its dull and 
vexatious dissonance." I proceed now to the extracts, which, 
I feel salislied, will excite in those, who have not read the 
Pamphlet, (published in Charleston in October, 1821) a 
desire to read such a vindication of National against State 
rights : 

*' What security, then, did the Convention, or in other 
words, " the People of the; United States," provide, to re- 
strain their fuactionaries I'lum usurping powers not delegated^ 
and from abusing those, with which they are really invest- 
ed ? Was it by the discordant clamors, and lawless resistance 
of the State rulers, that they intended to " insure domestic 
tranquility, and form a more perfect union ?" Was it by 
ihe o£ici us interference of their inferior agents, appointed for 
no other purposes, than those indicated by the State Con- 
stitutions, that they intended to " insure a salutary control 
over their superior agents ?" No — the Constitution will tell 
you, what is the real security they have provided. It is 
ihe responsibility of the Officers of the General Govern- 
ment, not to the State authorities, but to themselves, the 
People. This, and this only is the great conservative princi- 
ple, which lies at the foundation of all our political institu- 
tions, and sustains the great and glorious fabric of our liber- 
ty. This great truth ought to be kept in constant and lively 
remembrance by every American." p. 2. 

"-The States, as political bodies, have no original, inhe- 
rent rigfUs. That they have such rights is a false^ dang6r$u$ 



and anti-republican assumption^ which larks at the bottom of 
all the reasonings in favor of State rights." p. 2. 

In speaking of the General Government, he says, " I shall 
thoiv, that its admirable balance can o'ljy be jeopardized by 
the eccentric and centrifugal tendencies of the States.'''' p. 6. 

" We are called upon to believe that our federal rulers 
Wjill use with moderation the very pouers, by which ambi- 
tious men, have in all ages, built up the monuments of their 
own aggrandizement, upon the ruins of the Constitutioo, 
artd amidst the execrations of the people ; and yet that these 
rulers will consummate their ambitious purposes, and sub' 
vert our liberties^ by the paltry and petit larceny process of 
pilfering little fragments from the temples of Slate sove- 
veignly.''' p. 8. 

," The Supreme Judiciary of a State would hardly be in- 
clined to usUiji jurisdiction over the class of cases, that fall 
within the exclwdvt and humble jurisdiction of a commt^ 
magistrate " p. 8. 

I cite these passages from the Pamphlets of Mr Pinck- 
ney and Mr. M'Duffie, because they have my full approba- 
tion, except that I should be unwilling to represent State 
sovereignty in so humiliating a Jight, as the national enthusi- 
asm and indignatica of Mr. M'Duffie have led him to do. 
His principles I perfectly approve ; and I cannot give a 
stronger proof of my opiuioa as to his and Mr. Pinckney's 
pamphlets, than by declaring, that i think thein worthy of 
a place, in the Library of every American. And when the 
National sentiment of South-Carol ioa shall revive, as I 
know that it will, she will republish Mr. Pinckney's Draft 
of a Constitution, and his Commentary on it, in the pam« 
phlet referred to, as a more glorious ar.oauraent of Carolina 
talent and patriotism, than all the radical pamphlets, and 
Reports, and Resolutions of the present day. 

I have thus considered State sovereignty, in iti actual 
character, under the Constitution ef the United States, as 
to international and domestic jurisdiction : aud have demon- 
strated, I trust, that the Union is emphatically Sovereign, 
the Stale emphatically not Covereign : that the Union is em- 
phatically a J\ation^ at home and abroad, the State emphatic 
eally not a nation^ but a Corporation, having a local ^uthoritj, 
16 



lO^many respects, divided toithj in many mhordinaie to the 
Union. ' ' 

But, there is another point of view, in which we must 
contemplate State sovereignty. Nor is it thejleast import- 
ant and interesting; since it is that with regard to which the 
strangest and most pernicious delusion exists. J refer totho 
radical doctrine of Chief Justice M'Kean, in ?d Dallas, to 
the doctrine »f the Virginia Resolutions and Eeport of 1798, 
and to the same, as held by the Georgia Trio,, in 1821. It 
is this doctrine, among others, which Mr. IVI'Du-ffie has com- 
bated so eloquently and triuntphantly in his Numbers, signed, 
most happily and appropriately, '^ One of the People." 

" As lar as I can collect" (says he to the Trip) " any dis- 
tinct propositions from the medley of unconnected quotations, 
you have owde, on these very important subjects, I under- 
stand you to affirm, that in expounding the Federal Consti- 
tution, v^e should be " tied down to the strict Utter'''' of that 
instrument ; and that the General Government " was not 
made exclusive or final judge of the extent of the poioers to be 
delegated to itself, but that, as in all other cases of compact, 
among parties having no common judge, each partv had a 
BIGHT TO JUDGfc; FOK ITSELF : — thcsc may be considered 
the concentrated essence of dllthe wild and destructive principles^ 
that have ever been advanced, in relation to the subjects 
under consideration." p. 13. 

I have endeavored to show, that the true theory and 
sound practical construction of the National Constitution is, 
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on all questions 
of power arising under the National Charter, whether a 
State or an Individual call in question a law of Congress. 
But the Georgia doctrine, now adopted in Carolina, asserts, 
that the State has a right to judge for itself , and has lawful au- 
thority to declare an act of Congress a nullity ! For myself, 
I hold this to be a most dangerous doctrine, subversive of 
the peace of the Union, and of the security of the States. 

But let us take this doctrine, a& the true one, and follow 
out its consequences : and be it remembered, that it little 
becomes the good sense and dignity of Carolina, to deceive 
herself with puper-blockades of the General Government. 
She must be prepared to carry out her opinions into deeds : 



and she must count the cost of the deeds, as the harvest of 
her opinions. If the Stale possesses the Constitutional au- 
Ihority to judge and to xlecide that the law is a nullity, there 
is no denying as a legitimate consequence, that she has a 
right to act upon that judgment. Then let her act upon it, 
and all the fatal consequences already pourtrayed must re- 
sult from her decision, followed out into acti. But let us 
waive this, and take a more peaceful view of the sub- 
ject. If Carolina can lawfully declare an act of Congress a 
nullity, is she willing to adoiit, that no consequence is to flow 
from her solemn judgment. If so, then her boasted SovC' 
reignty amounts to nothing more than the right of every indU' 
itidualj to express his opinion of Mitional acts. This surely 
will not be the doctrine of Carolina. What th«n is to be the 
consequence ? Can she pretend to a Constitutional veto^ like 
that of the President, the effect of which is to require two- 
thirds of both Houses to past the Law ? If she pretends to 
this, let her remember, that shb tn^crpoZoies into the Consti- 
tution, a power, not so much as imagined to exist there. 
Does she assert, th&t htr judgment can annul the act of 
Congress .'' What ! when her acts of Assembly, and even 
her Constitution, are not tl^ smrp.nw laic of the lethd^ in rela- 
tion to the Union, is she wild enough to assert, that a iieso- 
Iviion of her Legislature is the supreme lav. of the land, and 
competent to annul an act of Congre^ .** If she contends for 
this, let her remember, that, here again, the is interpdla- 
ting into the National Constitution, a power, v;hi«h s^he ne- 
ver will concede to another State. If she vyill concede it, 
and to be consistent she must, then let her beware, and 
tremble at the consequences. For she must grant that Mas- 
sachusetts had a right to adjudge the Embargo unconstitu- 
tional, and to annul it : that Connecticut had lawful power 
to say to the President, you shall not have my militia ; that 
Maryland and Ohio had a right to say to the Bank of the 
United States, your charter is a nullity, and you shall not 
do business here : that New York had a right to say, I will 
protect my citizens in the enjoyment of the exclusive privi- 
leges of steam-boat navigation : that Pennsylvania was jus- 



tified In empowering her Executive to resist the Mar^iai ^f 
the District Court in executing its sentence : that Kentucky 
had the right to persist in her land laws, and to main- 
tain them by force against the judgment of the Suprenae 
Court. Such things, and hundreds of others like theip, 
must flow from this doctrine. Whenever any State regard^ 
an act of Congress as unconstitutional, she has full power, 
say these expounders of the Constitution, to annul the law.f 
But is this act of annulment of no avail ? How shall it ope- 
rate ? Shall it eitempt her from the obligation to obey th* 
law ? Shall the Union be compelled to re^)eal that law, or 
the Supreme Court be bound by her judgment ? bhi^ll she 
only be liberated from the operation of the law, or thpf« 
also who think with her, or the whole Union ? Are there 
any land-marks in the Constitution, to serve as guide? ip 
answering these questions ? There are, on the J^ational 
side of the controversy, but none on the radical side. This 
is precisely the state of things, which Washington looked to, 
when he says th^t the world will " see, and feel, that the 
UnioiU or the States individually, are sovereign, as best 
suits their purposes, or in a word, that we are one nation to 
day, arid thirteen to-morrow." 5 Marsh Wash. 73 

But let us take a farther view of this subject. If there be 
DO common arbiter, as I insist there is, then SouthTCarolina 
must grant to others, the same right of judgment, which she 
claimt f i herself: and if she asserts her right to annul ^nd 
resist the law, she must grant as a consequence, their right 
to vindicate and enforce the law. Hence the monstrous ab- 
surdity, that in a case of obvious occurrence, (a disp,ute as 
to h Cuostituiional point) the admirable Founders of the Con- 
stitution„couid devise no other, than the desperate European 
remedy of leaving the Union and the State, as ifidtpendent 

* " It it th< .<trlaM d will of the people of the United State4(, that every 
trmi- inari'-. hy the *i' thority of rlir Uiiii.d States, siiall be siipirior to the 
Con*tiur.ioii niid l»« of any iii'iiMiMt State ; and their will alone is to de- 
ciHe, It ii i-w o' a State, contrar\ to a w »{y is not void, but voidable only 
byatrpeal, or n-.llification bv a State I>Hgislature, this ceitain consequence 
foil-' , : irt. the will o^ a small part of the Lm'/e(^ S/afei may controul or 
defeat the wtll of the whole." Ptr Chase J. 3 Dallas^ 237. Ware v». HyltoQv 



93 

JV^tftons, to settle the question by the law of power, by the 
Sword ! Will any American believe such a libel on the Pa- 
triot Statesmen of 1 789 ? Not so ; for she knows, that the 
great, the rulinsr object of the Convention was to make the Unions 
totally independent of the States : and utterly to disable the 
States, from interfering ivith the enactment or execution of the 
Laws of the Union. They have totally, disgracefully, mise- 
rably failed, if the Trio doctrines, now the adopted foundling 
of Carolina, be a sound exposition of the Constitution. But 
Ihey have succeeded, completely and gloriously, if the Na- 
tional doctrine be the true one, that on a question of politi- 
cal expediency the pfople are the final Judges ; on a ques- 
tion of Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court. 

It will be granted, that to leave the State and the Union, 
to settle a disputed point, by a treaty or by the sivord, would 
be a state of things exceedingly to be deprecated. A per- 
manent, authorised arbiter is indispens-able to the safety 
and peace of all. Our system is incomplete without it. If 
we were now making a Constitution, is it not obvious that to 
provide such an arbiter, would be a matter of primary duty 
and interest. Such an arbiter then must exist. The State 
can shew not a vestige of title for her claim ; but the Nation 
shews the clause, which makes her laws supreme, and gives 
to her judtdari/ cognizance of all questions arising under Acr 
laws. Hence if a State denies (and I deny that she has any 
such authority) that a Law of Congress is Constitutional, 
there must be, both theoretically and practically, some per- 
manent, constitutional, independent arbiter, exempt from po- 
pular prejudices and passions; exposed neither to fear, nor to 
favor, nor to affection; of clear judgment, serene temper, and 
tried integrity; of sterling abilities and sound learning; and 
thoroughly read in the Constitutional history and law of their 
Country. Such a tribunal can only exist theoretically in a 
National Judiciary, and we behold it, practically, in the Su- 
fieme Court. 

There is one more consideration, that ought to be well 
considered. Carolina now denies the constitutionality of 
the Protective System. Let her remember, that all she 



9i 

says and does, is in tHe face of the whole Union and of the 
civilized world. Let her remember, that tbe Fathers of 
the Revolution have taught her, that it is not enough for a 
People to be right; but that they are bound in duty to satisfy 
the icorld^ that they are right. And how can she do this, 
when the records of our own country condemn her, as having 
been warned, and as having acquiosced over and over again; 
when tlie wise and good men of 1789 rise up in judgment 
against her; when her own statesmen, for more than thirty 
years bear testimony aga'nst her; when Washington, and 
Jefierson, Madisoa and Munroe all condemn her; when all 
the States, for thirty years, approved the tariff scheme, and 
a great majority now approve it; when the whole People ra- 
tified it for upwards of thirty years; and but a slender mi- 
nority now object to it. I<et her state such a case to the 
world, and that world will reply to her in the language of 
Mr. Jefferson, '■'■ absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the 
majority, is the vital principle of republics, from which there 
is no appeal, but to force, the vital principle, and immediate 
parent of despotism."* Let her state suck a case to her 
sister States, and they will reply to her in the spirit of 
Charles Pinckney's Observations :f "I trust no government 
will ever again be adopted in this country, whose alteration 
cannot be effected, but by the assent of all its members." 
" Difficult as the forming a perfect government would be, 
it is scarcely more so, than to induce thirteen separate Leg- 
islatures to think and act alike upon one subject — the alter- 
ations, that nine think necessary, ought not to be impeded 
by four. So inconsiderable a minority should be obliged to 
yields Let her turn in disgust from the World abroad and 
from the States at home, and lay her complaint before the 
People of the Union, and they will answer her in the lan- 
guage of her own Statesman, George M'DufRe, " Your at- 
tempt to control them (the general government) is peculiar- 
ly unbecoming and arrogant. When the officers of the ge- 
neral government do any act, which we think unauthorised 

" Presid. Mess. }. lo5. I, n.ig. Addreas of March, 1801. tp. 24. 



95 

by our letter of instructions, ice shall discard them from cmi* 
service. But, as long as we continue them in office, and ap- 
prove of their conduct, their acts are our^s, and any attempt 
on your part to resist them, is an attempt to resist the power 
that created you (ihn State authorities/'* AVill she turn, 
indignant and mortified, from the World, from her sister 
States, from the Nation ; and appeal to the departed great 
and good, the light and honor of former years ? Be it so : let 
her make the appeal, and the greatest and best of the 
great and good shall arise, and, in his own language to the 
States in 'S3, the Father-Patriot shall say to her, " What- 
ever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or 
contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereifyji authority, ought 
to be considered as hostile to the liberty c;.d independence of 
Jlnerica, and the anthers of them treated accordingly.^''] 

To whom then will Carolina appeal from the judgm.ent 
of the World and of her sister States, of the People of the 
Union, and of the departed great apd good. Condemned 
alike, at home and abroad, by the living and the dead, to 
whom can she appeal ? 1 here remains no appeal, but to 
God and the Sword. And can she deceive herself with the 
belief, that a God o{ Justice, who denounces vengeance even 
upon him, who removes the land-marks of a neighbour's field, 
will favorably receive the supplications of a &late, to aid hef 
in removing the ancient land marks of the nation, approved even 
by herself 1 Carolina acknowledged, for more than thirty 
years, the authority of Congress ; though, as she now be- 
lieves, deeply to her injury. And can she hope to be favor- 
ably heard by a God of Truth, who accepts only him, who 
" sweareth unto his neighbour, and disappointeth him not ; 
though it were to his oun hindrance ?" Let not Carolina de- 
ceive herself. She appeals not, a heathen people, to a 
God of War, capricious and savage, rejoicing in the carnage 
«f battle-fields and the conflagration of cities. She appeals, 
a Christian people, to a God of Truth and Justice, of Peace, 

» " One of the People," page 9, 
t § Marsh. Wash. p. 47, 60. 



and Mercy, and Love. If she means not to mock aiid bias* 
pheine, let her coiisider solemnly, that the prayer which 
she offers, is that God would sustain her courage, and 
strengthen her arm, in a war of Fratricide. And does she be- 
lieve, that her case is such, as to justify such a prayer, so 
awful and affecting even when just ; so horrible and impious 
if unjust ? Does she indeed believe, that if she calls, the 
Pious through all her borders, will pray for her success ? 
Does she believe, that from the Domestic altar, sup- 
plications for victory to her arras, will ascend to Heaven ? 
Does she believe, that the countless temples of the Most 
High will send up " the effectual fervent prayer of the 
righteous man," that hei powerful enemy may be over- 
thrown, ''that the race may not be to the swift, nor the bat- 
tle to the strong ?" Does she believe, that the appointed 
Ministers of God will offer up, with all their heart and with 
all their soul, the ardetit petition, that she may be Conquer- 
or ? The Warrior^ indeed, may wish that his country should 
bo Victor, whether right or wrong ; but let her remember, 
that the Christian dares not pray for victory to the arma 
even of his own country^ if she hath gone forth to fight the bat- 
ties of Injustice. Let not Carolina then deceive herself. Let 
her be solemnly convinced, that she can appeal with confi- 
dence to the religious feelings of her People; that her cause 
is the cause of justice and truth, in the sight of God and of 
Man ; that the blood, which her Sons shall pour forth in her 
service, will be the blood of martyrs ; that the lives, which 
shall be laid down in vindication of her rights, will be pre- 
cious in the sight of Angels ; that the groans of her dying and' 
her wounded will ascend from the battle tield of Brothers, 
like the agonies of tne murdered Abel ; that in the graves 
of her slaughtered children, Christian "oldiers will lie in 
their glory, awaiting in peace, the Resurrection of the Just. 
Let this, indeed, be her settled, religious conviction: and 
she may believe, that she fights under the defence of the 
Most High, and abides under the shadow of his wings." 
Then, indeed, a thousand may fall beside her, and ten thou- 
sand at her right hand, but it shall dot come nigh her. Then, 



97 

indeed, she may feel, that she goes forth, the people op 
God, to fight the battles of God But, if she hath 
Mot this assurance^ deeply, solemnly realized, she goes forth to 
battle, condemned by the World, and her sister States, and 
the Union, cast off by the Spirits of the departed Great and 
Good, yea, and forsaken even by God himself. She sends 
forth her children, a band of Parricides, to a war of rebel- 
lion against their lawful Rulers ; a band of Fratricides, to 
the slaughter of their Brethren. Without the sympathy of 
the World, without the acclamations of the Free, without 
the prayers of the Pious, or the blessings of her God, she 
sends them forth to the harvest-field of battle, with no re- 
source but the chivalry of the south, with no strength but 
the Sword. Then will she reap the reward of the Sword, 
cruel, remorseless, insatiable. The winding sheet of her 
sons shall be garments rolled in blood. The gray hairs of 
her aged men, shall be brought down, with sorrow, to the 
grave. The venerable matron, the mother and her circle 
of children, the youthful bride, and the delicate maiden, 
shall have for their portion, weeping, and lamentation, and 
griefs, that refuse to be comforted. Then, throughout all 
her borders, shall be the trembling heart, and failiijg of 
eyes, and sorrow of mind. Then from all her households 
shall ascend the prophetic aspirations of the Ancient People 
of God — " In the Morning, would God it were Even — in 
the Evening, would God it were Morning !" 

May such a night of desolation and mourning never be the 
lot of Carolina ! May it yet be given to her to feel, as a land 
of Peace and quietness, that the lot is fallen unto her in a 
fair ground, that she hath a goodly heritage ! May her re- 
sentments yet be overruled for good, good to herself and to 
the Union, good to ourselves, the Carolina of this day, good 
to our posterity, the Carolina of future years ! May this 
season of fearful gloom be speedily overpast ; and our belo- 
ved country be permitted again to feel all the holy, delight* 
ful influences that flow, as from a fountain of healing waters, 
from the national fellowship of The Union. 
17 



%• 



NOTES TO THE SPEEClf 



NOTE A. PAGE 21. i^ 

I love to contemplate the Government of the Union, as a 
iParent Government : as the Guardian of the State Govern- 
ments, rather than those of that. I am better pleased to 
consider the separate existence and independence of the 
States, as the result of a joint, common act, than the ex- 
istence and independence of the National Government, as 
the result of the separate acts of the States. The Decla- 
ration of Independence was the joinf, common act of thir- 
teen States, already united, and relying on mutual efforts 
to secure their separate independence. The first of those 
efforts was the independence of each : and the successful 
resistance o^ all as one band, produced the continued union 
of all. I rejoice that I am able to refer to the following 
sentiments of a great Statesman Judge (Chief Justice Jay) 
in confirmation of what I have said : 

" All the people of this country were then (before the 
Revolution) subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed 
allfgiance to him ; and all the civil authority then existing or 
exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. 
They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety 
of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, 
the patriots did not a(»sert that only the same affinity and so- 
cial connection subsisted between the people of the colonies, 
which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and 
Spain, while Roman Provinces, viz. only that affinity and 
social connection, which result from the mere circumstance 
of being governed by the same Prince ; different ideas pre- 
vailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775. 

" The Revclulion, or rather the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, found the people already united for general purposes, 
and at the same time providing for their more domestic con- 
cerns by State Conventions, and other temporary arrange- 
ments. From the Crown of Great Britain^ the sovereignty^ 
«f their country psussed to the people of it ; and it was then 



Bot 3n uncommou opinion, that the unappropriated lancfe, 
which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of 
the Colony or States, within whose limits they were situa- 
ted, but to the whole people ; on whatever principles this 
opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen 
sovereignties were considered as emerged from the princi- 
ples of the Revolution, combined with local convenience 
and considerations. The people nevertheless continued to con- 
sider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people ; 
and they continued without interruption to manage their 
national concerns accordingly." 2 Dallas, 470. Chisolua 
vs. Georgia. Per Ch. J. Jay. 

Mr. Monroe in his Inaugural Address of March, 1817, 
speaks thus of this Parent Government : " The States re- 
spectively, protected by the National GoYernment, under a 
mild parental system, against foreign dangers, and enjoying 
within their separate spheres, by a wise partition of sove- 
reignty, have improved their police, extended their settle- 
ments, and attained a strength and maturity, which are the 
best proofs of wholesome laws well administered." Presid. 
Speeches, p. 349. See also 5 Marsh. Wash. 48. It is of 
this Parent Government that Mr. M'Duffie said, in his an- 
swer to " the Trio," in the summer of 1821, *' Have we 
not enjoyed all the happiness, which it is in the power of 
Government to confer ? Where is the man that has felt the 
oppressive arm of the General Government .'' In the whole 
history of its progress, you cannot point to one single act of op- 
pression. It has wrested from no man his property, it has 
deprived no man of his liberty." And this was after the 
Tariff of 1816 and 1820 ; and the schemes of Internal Im- 
provement. See the Pamphlet " National aad State rights 
considered," as republished, as has been always under- 
stood, by the former Representative from Colleton and 
Beaufort, with a preface abounding in commeadation of the 
writer and his principles. 

NOTE B. PAGE 23. 

I cannot d« better than to quote here the sentiments of 
Mr. J. Story, in Terrett vs. Taylor, on the subject of co- 
temporaneous exposition, because they are not only just i-n 
themselves, but have a remarkable application to the pre- 
sent opinions of the Legislature of South-Carolina, when 
contrasted with the opinions held by her from 1789 to 1820. 

" It is asserted by the Legislature of Virginia, in 1798 
and 1801, that this statute was inconsistent with the bill of 
rights and constitution of that State, and therefore void. 
Whatever weight such a declaration might properly have as 



100 

the opinion of wise and learned mec, as a declaration of 
what the law has been or is, it can have no decisive autho- 
rity. It is, however, encountered by the opinion, succes- 
sively given by former Legislatures, from the earliest existence of 
t]ie Constitution itself, which were composed of men oftJie 
very first rank for talents and learning. And this opinion, 
too, is not only a cotp.mporaneous exposition of the Constitu- 
tion, but has the additional weight that it was promulgated 
or acquiesced in by a great majority, if not the whole, of the 
very framers of the Constitution.''^ 9 C ranch, 51. 

Let me add to this, the sentiments of Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, (in M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 401) senti- 
ments equally honorable to him as a Judge, a Patriot and a 
Statesman : " It will not be denied, that a bold and during 
usurpation might be resisted, after an acquiescence still 
longer and more complete than this. But it is conceived, 
that a doubtful question, one on which human reason may 
pause, and the human judgment be suspfinc/cc/, in the decision 
of which the great principles of liberty are not concerned, but 
the respective powers of those who are equally the representa- 
tives of the people, are to be adjusted ; if not put at rest by 
the practice of the Government, ought to receive a consi- 
derable impression from that practice. An exposition of the 
Constitution, deliberately established by Legislative acls^ on 
the faith of which an immense property has been advanced, 
ought not to be lightly disregarded." 

I shall add the sentiments of Mr. M'Duffie, from his 
Numbers signed " One of the People," addressed to the 
Radical Trio of Georgia : in which, speaking of Washington, 
Hauiiiton and Madison, he says, ' For if you are sincere in 
your professions of attachment for the " principles of the 
Revolution" and of the Federal Constitution, and are not 
acting a part in a great political manoeuvre ; if you are ho- 
nestly seeking for the truth of principles, and not for the 
means of individual aggrandizement ; to what oracles could 
you have applied, so likely to give you an unerring response, 
as the imuiortal Patriots and Statesmen, whose names I 
have just mentioned ?" p. 10. Thus said Carolina in 1621, 
by the pen of George M'Duffie ; for no one can doubt, that 
even after that time, the radical doctrines of Virginia and 
Georgia were alien to the great body of the people, and to 
the Legislature of Soulh-Carolina. Witness the Report and 
Resolutions of Mr. Prioleau in December, 1824. 

Let me add, on the subject of cotemporaneous and conti- 
nued exposition, the sentiments of Mr. Madison, when he 
returned the U. S. Bank Bill on 30th January, 1815, with 
llw reasons (on account of its inexpediency) for not signing 



101 

it. " Waiving the question of the Constitutional authority 
of the Legislature to establish an incorporated Bank, as being 
precluded in my judgment by repeated recognitions, under va- 
ried circumstances, of the validity of such an institution, in 
acts of the Legislative, Kxeoutive and Judicial branches of 
the Government, accompanied by indications, in different 
modes, of a concurrence of the general icill of the nation, &c. 
&c." Senate Journal, 3d Session, 13lh Congress, p. 309. 
Mr. Madison had opposed the Charter of the old Bank in 
1791, as unconstitutional : and yet, he felt himself bounds 
as President, to yield his opinion to the exposition of prece- 
dents : and had he opposed the Tariff act of 1 789, on a simi- 
lar ground, he would, on the same principle, have with- 
drawn his objections to the Tariff bill of 1816. That Mr, 
Madison entertained no doubt on the Constitutionality of the 
Bank, is manifest from his Message of 5th December, 1815, 
(Presid. Speeches, p. 329) — " If the operation of the State 
Banks cannot produce this result, the probable operation of 
a Natiojnal Bank, will merit consideration :" and if aught 
wrere necessary beyond this, it would be found in the fact, 
that he signed and approved the Charter of 10th April, 
1816, and rejected the Bonus bill, on a ground, totally un- 
connected with any objection to the Bank. Senate Journal, 
-?dSess. HthCongr. 3d March, 1817, p. 406. 

NOTE C. PAGE 26. 

The protective authority of a well regulated, independent 
Judiciary cannot be too highly pri/ed. And it is a remark- 
able and interesting fact, that with the single exception of 
cases of Prerogative, even the King in England is obliged 
to go to his Courts for justice, and, in like manner, the 
State and the United States in this country, are obliged 
to do the same ; because the right of Jury trial must re- 
main inviolate. If H debt is due to the State, if the public 
buildings are injured, if the public lands are trespassed upon, 
if a public officer is guilty of neglect of duty or usurpation 
of power, there is no short-handed summary method of con- 
viction and punishment. The Defendant cannot be deprived, 
but by his own act, of a fair and complete trial. Thus, 
even in England, the King's high officer, his Secretary 
of State, is liable, as well as his agents, for an illegal 
warrant of commitment: and all the power of the Crown 
could not screen them, from the responsibility to English 
Judges and English Juries. See the cases of General War- 
rants ; Entickvs. Carrington, 11 St. Tr. 317, 9 ; and Beard- 
more vs. Earl of Halifax, (Sayer's Damages, p. 228) iii 



102 

which the Plaintiff recovered 1500Z. There is nothing sck 
admirable in the English system, as the protective charac- 
ter of Courts of Justice : nor is there any thiii^ more so in 
our American schemes of society and governoi'int, than the 
calm, impartial, fearloss administration of justice, betiveen 
the Union and a State, between that and a privnte citizen, 
and between this and Immble individuals. Truth and jus- 
tice are indsed full of dignity and beauty ; and Courts, right- 
ly estimated, are venerable and holy. They are the Guar- 
dian Angels of life, liberty, character and property. They 
are neither disgraced by the crimes and follies of the parties 
before them ; nor can thoy be honored by the rank and pow- 
er of suitors. They are clothed, as Ministers of Justice, 
with power, dignity, authority, more pure and elevated, 
more sacrod and durable, than the presence of Kings or 
iJtates can bestow. 

NOTE D, PAGE 35. 

! republish here the Resolution of the Legislature of 
South Carolina ia 1821, (A. A. p. 69.) because it becomes 
Carolina, if she loves consistency, to reconcile </ia< judgment 
with her denunciation of the Constitutionality of the Tariff^ 
when no one can doubt, that the power in the latter is of a 
more obvious character th;in in the former c:iys, since the 
TarilF rests pn a host of evidence of various descriptions, 
nothing like which attends the case of the Bank. 

" //t f/ie [{oust of Representalives, Dec. 11, 1821. 

"The Special Committee, to whom were referred the 
jesolutions from the several States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
New-Jersey, Verrpout and Uiinois, bag leave to Report, 
That thf^y have had the same under their ccnsideration, and 
find, that the State of Pennsylvania, by its resolution, has 
proposed gin amendment to the Constitution in the words fol- 
lowing, to wit : That " Congress shall make no law to erect 
or incorporate any bank or other monied institution, except 
within the District of Columbia ; and every bank or other 
monied institution, which shall be established hy the authority 
of Congress, shall, together with its branches and offices of 
Discount and Deposit, be coufinad to the District of Colum- 
bia ;" in which that State requests the concurrence of her 
sister States : That the States of Ohio and Illinois have con- 
cyrred with Pennsylvania in the proposed amendment ; and 
that the States of New-Jersey and Vermont have disagreed 
thereto. Your committee are unanimously of opinion, that 
as Congress is constitutionally vested with the right to in- 
corporate a bank, it would be qawise and impolitic to restrict 



103 

its operations within such narrow limits as the District of 
Colurubia. They apprehend no danger from the exercise 
of the powers which the people of the United States have 
contided to Congress ; but believe that in the ex6rcise of 
these powers, that body will render them subservient to 
i\w great purposes of our national compact. Your commit* 
tee therefore beg leave to recoumiend to this house the fol- 
lo\'t.(g resolutions : 

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of South-Car- 
olina do not concur in the amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, proposed by Pennsylvania in the follow- 
ing words: — " Congress shall make no law to erect or incor- 
porate any bank or other monied institution, except within 
the District of Columbia ; and every bank or other monied 
institution which shall be established by the authority of 
Congress, shall, together with its branches and offices of 
Discount and Deposit, be confined to the District of Colum- 
oia." 

Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to 
transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to the Executives 
of the several States, with a request that they lay the same 
before the Legislatures thereof. 

Resolved, That the house do agree to the report. Order- 
ed, That it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. 

By order of the House, 
j R. ANDERSON, C. H. R. 

/ In, the Senate, Dec. 12, 1821. 

'Resolved, That this House do concur with the House of 
Representatives in the foregoing report. Ordered, That 
the report be returned to the House of Representatives. 
By order of the Senate, 

WM. D. MARTIN, C. S. 

NOTE E. PAGE 35. 
I copy here these Resolutions of Virginia, in Jan. 1810, from 
& Note to Cohens rs. Virginia, in 6 Wht. p. 358, N. A. which 
as it is a book almost exclusively confined to the Profession of 
the Law, may be considered as inaccessible to the great 
mass of the Intelligent. This, and the South Carolina Re~ 
solutions of 1821 as to the Bank of the United States, are 
fair specimens of the sound and sober judgment of Virginia 
and South Carolina, when acting dispassionately and delibe» 
rately on the cases of other States. 

Extract from the Journal of the Senate of the CommoB<> 
wealth of Virginia, begun and held at the Capitol in thtt 
<0Xy ©f Richjqaond, th* 4tk day «f Decevber, 1309. 



104 

" Friday, J.muary 26, iSlO. 

<' Mr. Nelson reported from the committee to whom 
were comoiitteJ the preamble and resolutions on the amend- 
ment proposed by the Lesjislature of Pennsylvania, to the 
Constitution of the Uaited States, by tha appointmaat of an 
impartial tribiiiial to decile disputes betxvi^en the States 
and Federal Judiciary, that the committee had, according 
to order, taken the siid preamble and resoluiions under 
their consideration, and directed him to report them ^rithout 
anaendaient. A.nd on the rjueslion b.-?in* put thereupon, the 
same were agreed to unaniuiouily, by <h>j House, as foilojvs: 
The committee to vvhom was re*\;rri^ ! the communicition 
of the (jrovernor of Pennsylvania, covcriigcerrai:) res<d'itions 
of the Legislature of that State, proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the Unite] Slates, by the appointment of 
an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the States 
and Federal Judician/^ have hid the sam?^ under their con- 
sideration, and are .>f opinion, that a trihuial is already pro- 
vided by the constitution of the United States, to wit : the 
Supreme Court, more eminently qualified from thiiir habits 
and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the 
tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes aforesaid, in 
an enlightened and impartial manner. The members of the 
Supreme Court are selected from those in the United States 
who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning, not 
at the will of a single individual, but by the concurrent 
wislies of the Preside.it and Senate of the United States ; 
thejf will therefore have no local prejudices and partialities. 
The duties they have to perform lead them necessarily to 
the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the juris- 
diction of the Federal and State Courts, together with the 
admirable symmetry of our Government. 

The tenure of their office, enablfis them to pronounce 
the sound and correct opinions they may have formed, with- 
out fear, favour, or partiality. The amendment to the 
Constitution proposed by Pennsylvania, seems to be founded 
upon the idea that the Fed'^ral judiciary will, from a lust of 
power, enlarge their jurisdiction, to the total annihilation 
of the jurisdiction of the State Courts ; that they will exer- 
cise their will, instead of the law and the Constitution. 
This argument, if it proves any thing, would operate more 
strongly against the tribunal proposed to be created, which 
promises so little, than against the Supreme Court, which, 
for the reasons given before, have every thing connected 
with their appointment, calculated to insure confidence. 
What security have we, were the proposed amendment 
adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their wilj 



105 

and their pleasure in place of the law ? The Judiciary aro 
the weakest of the three departments of Government, and 
least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. 
They hold neither the purse nor the sword ; and even to en- 
force their own judgments and decrees, must ultimately de- 
pend upon the Executive arm. Should the Federal Judi- 
ciary^ however, unmindful of their weakness, unmindful of 
the duty which they owe to themselves and their country, 
become corrupt, and transcend the limits of their jurisdi«- 
tion, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable 
barrier to such an improbable state of things ? The crea- 
tion of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so 
far as we are enabled to form an idea of it, from the descrip- 
tion given in the Resolutions of the Legislature of that State, 
would, in the opinion of your Committee, tend rather to in- 
vite, than prevent a collision between the Federal and State 
Courts. It might also become, in process of time, a seri- 
ous and dangerous embarrassment to the operations of the 
General Government. 

Resolved, therefore, that the Legislature of this State do 
disapprove of the amendment to the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States, proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. 

Resolved^ also, that his Excellency the Governor be, and 
is hereby requested to transmit forthwith, a copy of the fore- 
going Preamble and Resolutions to each of the Senators and 
Representatives of this State, in Congress, and to the Ex- 
ecutives of the several States in the Union, and request 
that the same be laid before the Legislatures thereof." 

Extract from the Journal of the House of Delegates of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia : 

" Tuesday, January 23d, 1810. 
•' The House, according to the order of the day, resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole house on the slate of 
the Commonwealth, and after some time spent therein, Mr. 
Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Robert Stanard re- 
ported, that the committee had, according to order, had 
under consideration, the Preamble and Resolutions of the 
select committee, to whom were referred that part of the 
Governor's communication, which relates to the amendment 
proposed to the Constitution of the United States, by the 
Legislature of Pennsylvania, had gone through the same, 
and directed him to report them to the House without 
amendment ; which he handed in at the Clerk's table, and 
the question being put on agreeing to the said Preamble and 
Resolutions, they were agreed to by the House unanimoos- 
ly." Wheat. Rep. vol. 6, p. S5S, Cohans vs,- Virginia. 

18 



106 

NOTE F. PAGE 38. 

Ifthe objection had been taken, in the case of the Law of 
Oliie, which was taken in the case of the State rs. AIIe>h, 
1st M'Cord, p. 525, (Ante p. 27) viz. that the sum im- 
posed was a penalty, and not a tax, though professing to be. 
such, a prohibition would undoubtedly have stopped the 
Ohio Tax-warrant, and have driven the State, with all her 
sovereign authority around her, to a coitrt of justice, to re- 
cover the penalty. 

NOTE G. PAGE 40. 

. Decmons of the Supreme Court. 

No. 1. Declaring Acts of Congress ui>constitutional : Pen- 
sion Law, 2 Dall. 410, N. 1792 ; Marbury vs. Madisort, 1 
Cranch, 137, 1801. 

No. 2. Declaring Acts of Congress constitutional : Chis- 
olmvs. Georgia, 3 ball. 429, 1793; Hilton us. United States,. 
3 Dall. 171, 1796; Fisher us. Blight, 4 Cranch, 358, 1805; 
United States vs. Brigantiiie William, 2 Amer. Law Jour- 
nal, p. 255, 1808 ; M'CuUoch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 
1819 ; Osborn vs. B. U. S. 9 Wheat. 738, 1824. 

No. 3, Declaring State Laws Constitutional : Cooper vs. 
Telfair, 4 Dall. p. 14, Georgia, 1800 ; Houston vs. Moore, 
5 Wheat. 1, Pennsylvania, 1820 ; Ouings vs. Speed, 5 
Wheat. 420, Virginia, 1820 ; Willianis vs. Norris, 12 
Wheat. 117, Tennessee, 1827; Montgonnery vs. Hernan- 
dez, 12 Wheat. 129, Louisiana, 1827; Wilson rs. Black- 
bird Creek Marsh Cy. 2 Pet. 251, Delaware, 1829 ; Sat- 
terlee vs. Malhewsou, 2 Pet. 380, Pennsylvania, 1829 ] 
Bank of Hamilton vs. Dudley, 2 Pet. 523, Ohio, 1829; 
Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, Rhode Island, 1829. 

No. 4, Declaring State Laws Unconstitutional : Georgia 
r,s. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 4, Georgia, 1794; Vanhorne vs. 
Darrance, 2 Dall. 304, Pennsylvania, 1795; War« vs. 
Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, Virginia, 1796 ; U. S. vs. Dorrance, 
2 Dall. 371, Pennsylvania, 1797 ; Clerke vs. Harvvood, 3 
Dall. 342, Maryland, 1797; Ogden vs. Blackledge, 2 
Cranch, 272, North-Carolina, 1804; Hopkirk vs. Bell, S 
Cranch, 454, Virginia, 180U ; U. S. vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 
115, Pennsylvania, 1809; Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranchf 
87, Georgia, 1810 ; New-Jersey vs. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 
164, New Jersey, 1812; Terrelt rs. Taylor, 9 Crancli, 
43, Virginia, 1815 ; Pawlettvs. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292, Ver- 
mont, 1815; Chirac vs. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, Maryland, 
1817 ; Sturgis vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, New- 
York, 1819; M'Millanvs. McNeil, 4 Wheat. 209, Loui- 



107 

siana, 1819 ; M'CuHoch »s. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, Ma 
ryland, 1819 ; Dartmouth Colles;e vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 
518, New Hampshire, 1819 ; Farmers & Mechanics Bank 
vs. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131, Pennsylvania, 1821 ; Green w. 
Biddle, 8 Wheat. I, Kentucky, 18<J3 ; Society for Propa- 
gating Gospel in Foreign Parts vs. Wheeler, 8 Wheat. 464, 
Vermont, 1823 ; Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, N. York, 
18^4; Osburn vs. B. U. S. 9 Wheat. 738, Ohio, 1824; 
Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, New-York, 1827; 
Brown «». Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, Maryland, 1827; 
Plowden Weston vf. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 
South-Carolina, 1829 ; Bank of Hamilton vs. Dudley, 2 
Pet. 525, Ohio, 1829. 

No. 5. Affirming Judgments of State Courts : Olney vs. 
Arnold, 3 Dall. 308, Rhode Island, 1796 ; Calder i-s Bull, 

3 Dall. 386, Connecticut, 1798; Mathews vs. Zane. 5 
Cranch, 92, Ohio, 1809 ; Smith is. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 
286, Maryland, 1810 ; Otis vs. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 589, Mas- 
sachusetts, 1813; Slocum tJS. Mayberry, 2 W^heat. 1, R. 
Island, 1817 ; Gelston rs. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, New York, 
1818; Houston r*. Moere, 5 Wheat. 1, Pennsylvania, 1820; 
Martin IS. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, New-York, 1827; Wil- 
liams vs. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117, Tennessee, 1827 ; Mont- 
gomery w. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129, Louisiana, 1827; 
Ross vs. Doe, 1 Pet. 655, Mississippi, 1828; Wilson rs. 
Blackbird Creek Marsh Cy. 2 Pet. 251, Delaware, 1829 ; 
Satterlee »s. Mathewson, 2 Pet. 380, Pennsylvania, 1829. 

No. 6. Annulling Judgments of State Courts ; Clerke vs. 
Harwood, 3 Dall. 342, Maryland, 1797; New-Jersey i;5. 
Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164, New-Jersey, 1812 ; M'Kim v%. 
Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279, Kentucky, 1812; Palmer r*. 
Allen, 7 Cranch, 550, Connecticut, 1813 ; Fairfax vs. Hun- 
ter, 7 Cranch, 604, Virginia, 1813; Fairfax rs. -Hunter, 
1 Wheat. 304, Virginia, 1816; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 

4 Wheat. 316, Maryland, 1819; Dartmouth College vs. 
Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, New Haven, 1819 ; Farmers 
& Mechanics Bank f*. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131, Pennsylvania, 
1821 ; Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, Virginia, 1821 ; 
M'Clung vs. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, Ohio, 1821 ; Buel 
vs. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312, Vermont, 1823; Gibbons is. 
Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, New York, 1824; Broun is. Mary- 
land, 12 Wheat. 419, Maryland, 1827; Weston us. City 
Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, South-Carolina, 1829. 

No. 7. Assenting Appeal Jurisdiction : Mathews ds. Zaiie, 
4 Cranch, 382, Ohio, 1808 ; Pawlett vs. Clarke, 9 Cranch, 
292, 1815; Martin vs. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, Vireinia^ 
1816 ; Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, Virginia, 18«1 ; 



lOS 

Buel vs. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312, Vermmit, 1823 ; Ross 
vs. Doe, 1 Pet. 655, Mississippi, 1828; Weston m. City 
Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, South-Carolina, 1829. 

No. 8. Appeal Jurisdiction acquiesced in : Olney vs. Ar- 
nold, 3 Dall. 308, Rhode Island, 1796; Clorke v^. Her- 
wood, 3 Dall. 342, Maryland, 1797; Calder vs. Bull, 3 
Dall. 386, Connecticut, 1798; Mathews vs. Zane, 4 Cranch, 
882, Ohio, 1808; Smith vs. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286, 
Maryland, 1810; New Jersey ts. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164, 
New Jersey, 1812; Fairfax vs. Hunter* 7 Cranch, 604, 
Virginia, 1813; Otis rs. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 589, MassaclkU- 
setis, 1813; Palmer tJS. Allen, 7 Cranch, 550, Connecti- 
cut, 1813; Gelstoncs. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, NewYork, 
1818; Sloeuna t;*. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. 1, Rhode Island, 
1817; Miller vs. Nicholas, 4 Wheat. 311, Pennsylvania, 
1819 ; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, Maryland, 
1819; Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 
New Haven, 1819 ; Houston vs. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, Penn- 
sylvania, 1820; Farmers & Mechanics Bank vs. Smith, 6 
Wheat. 131, Pennsylvania, 1821 ; Gibbons us. Ogden, 9 
Wheat. 1, New-York, 1824; Martin vs. Moit, 12 Wheat, 
19, New-York, 1827; Weston vs. City Council of Charles- 
ton, 2 Pet. 449, South-Carolina, 1829; Wilson vs. Black, 
bird Creek Marsh Cy. 2 Pet. 251, Delaware, 1829 ; Sat- 
terlee vs. Mathewsou, 2 Pet. 380, Pennsylvania, 1829. 

No. 9 States parties nominally and really : Chisolm vs. 
Georgia. 3 Dall. 429, Georgia, 1793; Georgia vs. Brails- 
ford, 3 Dall 4, Georgia, 1799 ; U. S vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 
115 Pennsylvania, IJ-OO ; Smith vs. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 
286, Maryland, 1810; New Jersey vs. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 
164, New Jersey, 1812 ; M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 
316, Maryland, 1819. 

No. 10. States parties incidentally : Fowler vs. Lindsay, 
S Dall. 411, Connecticut and New York, 1799; Handly 
vs. Anthony, 5 Wheat. 374, Ohio and Kentucky, 1820 ; 
Osbornvs. B. U. S. 9 Wheat. 738, Ohio, 1824 ; B. U. S. 
vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904, Georgia, 1824. 

No. 11. Opinions against the President: Marbury vs. 
Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1801 ; Little vs. Barreme, 2 
Cranch, 170, 1804. 

No. 12. Opinions in favor of the President : Martin vs. 
Motl, 12 Wheat. 19, New York, 1827; Parker vs. U. S. 
1 Pet. 293, 1828. 

No. 13. Opinion against the Secretary of State : Marbu- 
ry vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1801. 



NOTE H. PAGE 40. 

This case was cle<;ided in the (old Law) Appeal Court of 
Soulh-Carolina, by Judges Colcock, Johnson, Richardson 
and Gantt, against Judges Bay, Nott and Huger. And in 
the Supreme Court, by Ch. J. Marshall, Judge Story, Judge 
Washington, and Judge Duval, against Judge Johnson and 
Judge Thompson. 

NOTE I. PAGE 43. 

The two first amendments, proposed by the Congress of 
1789, (the first as to the apportionment of Representatives, 
and the second as to the compensation of Members of Con- 
gress) have never been adopted. See 1st vol. L. U. S. 
(authorised edition of 1815) p. 73, and Senate Journal of 
March, 1791, p. 92. And yet these two first are published 
with the rest of the twelve in the collection of the Presi- 
dents' Speeches, or "rather Messages, p 25, vVith the Acts 
of Assembly of South-Carolina of 1816, p. 132, and are even 
spoken of as adopted in 5 Marsh. Wash, p. 209, 210. 

NOTE K. PAGP 43. 

I apprehend, that his Excellency in his Message, has done 
gieat injustice, undesignedly, I doubt not, to the Clergy of 
the Established Church in Virginia, in 1763. According to 
Mr. Wirt, in his Life of P. Henry, p. 22, ''it seems im- 
possible to deny, at this day, that the Clergy had much the 
6«5f of the argument." And again, " the Court very much 
to the credit of their candor and ^nnness, breasted the popu- 
lar current, by sustaining the demurrer" in favor of the Cler- 
gy, p. 22. His Excellency says, " a Church establishment 
was overset, and a system of tythes and contributions insti- 
tuted for its support, put down forever." Now there was 
no controversy, about maintaining or destroying the Church 
Establishment, nor any about abolishing tythes: and if there 
liad been, and the effort alluded to had been produced, it 
would then follow, that the Jury had actually overturned a 
system, founded and secured by all the sanctions of their oicn 
Legislature! The question was not, whether the Cleigy 
should be paid any tythe at all, but how much they should 
have. They claimed according to the undoubted law of the 
Province, to be paid in Tobacco, without any regard to its 
value; for the law simply entitled them to 16000 lbs. ; 
while the people contended, under a repealed law, that they 
should have only as much money, as would pay them 16-8 
for each pound, when Tobacco was actually worth 60 cents 
per pouud. The principle contended for by Patrick Henry 



up 

was subversive of the fanciaraental, constitutional law of the 
Colo»y, about which no man ever doubted, viz. : that the 
King and Council had a right to annul the Colonial Laws at 
pleasure. They had do:ie sio, as to the act, under which 
the people claimed : and, therefore, the only Imc^ by which 
the Court and Jury could have bqen lawfully guided, w%s 
that under which th« Clergy clalnaed. It seems inapossib]^ 
to read the account of the trial without regarding the success 
of Mr. Henry as dishonorable to the cause of right and jus- 
tice: and, while it is one of the most extraordinary instances 
of the triumph of eloquence, it is at the same time a melan- 
eboly illustration of that skill, which " makes the worse 
appear the better reason." 

But the most singular circumstance, attending the trial, 
was that the Judges should so far have forgotten their duty, 
»ipon the Jury's finding a verdict of one penny damages, 
(when the Defendants admitted the Plaintiffs were entitled to 
16009 lbs. of Tobacco, com.nuted at 16-8 per pound,) as 16 
refuse a motion fo*' a new trial If these be the triumphs of 
eloquence, and these the blessings of Jury Trial, no man of 
good sense could value either. Happily, however, such an 
abuse of power on the part of an eloquent m^n, such disre*- 
gard of admitted rights by the Jury, and such abandonment of 
their plain, unqncritionable duty, by the Judges, is scarcely 
to be paralleled 

Another circumstance eq lally singular is this, which f 
notice on the authority of Mr. Hay, (I Hen. and Murf. Rep. 
p. 881, Overstreet ts. Marshall,) and on my general recol- 
lection of Virginia law. "^Phe Action was Debt, on a Stat- 
ute for 16000 lbs. of Tobacco. Now judgments were en* 
tered and executions issued /'under the Virginia laws) for 
Tobacco, in the case of a Tobacco contract, and not for mo- 
ney. Tobacco was statute money. To the declaration the 
Defendant pleaded in bar, the Plaintiff demurred. The 
Demurrer was sustained : of course the plea was set aside, 
and according to the settled cour'^e of practice, judgment 
final by default for the Statute Debt should have been en- 
tered forthwith. There was, in fact, nothing to submit to 
the Jury: any more than there would have in Virginia in the 
case of a Bond, with a money penalty and money condition ; 
or of a Bond, with a Tobacco penalty and Tobacco coadition. 

NOTE L. PAGE 44. 

On principles of Constitutional Law, is it not a contra4ic' 
tionin terms, to ask for the repeal of an imconstittUionalblil 
of a void act ? On principles of political espp^diencyy thfjff 



Ill 

is reason to ask it, in or(ier that those, who would Gther" 
wise be disposed te regard it as constitutional, might save 
themselves and others trouble and embarrassment, by 06 
longer finding it in their xvay. The Resolutions of the Ken- 
tucky Legislature of 10th Nov. nOS, penned by Mr. Jef- 
ferson, concludes, *' That the Co^'States concur in declaring 
these Qcts void and of no force, and will each unite with this 
Commonwealth in requesting their repeal, at the next ses- 
sion of Congress." p. 66. The Report of Mr Madison, p. 
58, in support of the Resolutions of the Virginia Legislature 
of 21st Dec. 1798, says at p. 58, " The Legislatures of 
the States might have made a direct representation to Con*" 
gresswith a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive 
acts :" and this is spoken of in the next paragraph, as a far- 
ther measure, " after declaring the two acts to be unconsti' 
tutional." It would appear by the Pamphlet, reprinted in 
Charleston last year, from the Richmond copy of February, 
1826, that the only States, who returned answers to the 
Virginia Resolutions disapproved them ; for the only replies 
given are those of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and De- 
laware. 

NOTE M. PAGE 45. 
*' I wish," says Chief Justice Jay, " that the state of 
society was so far improved, and Ihe science of Government 
advanced to such a decree of perfection, as that the ivhole 
i^iilion could, in the peaceable course of law, be compelled 
to do justice, and be sued by individual citizens." 2 Dall. 
478. Does it not become Eepnblics to act on the principle 
of that noble sentiment of a King, Frederick the Great — ■ 
" Judges ought to know, that the poorest peasant is a man, 
as well as the King himself. All men ought to obtain jus- 
tice ; ?ince in the estimation of Justice, all men are equal ; 
whether the Prince complain of a peasant, or a peasant 
complain of the Prince " Don Diego, the son of Colum- 
bus, sued Ferdinand before the Council for Indian Affairs, 
who decided against the King. Louis the XVIth did not 
feel himself to be degraded by suing Robert Morris in a 
Pennsylvania Court, 2"Dall. 407 ; and Georgia did not 
consider herself as dishonored by appearing as a Plaintiff. 
Georgia vs. Brailsfoid, 2 Dall. 402, and 3 Id. p. 4. The 
indignity attending a suit against a State, as against au indi- 
vidual, arises from the Defendant's refusing to do, except 
by coercion, what he ought to have done cheerfully and 
fjreely. A suit against Gen. Wasbingtoo would not have dis- 



lis 

honored him, if h-; bad had a just defence ; but he wouM 
have been degraded in universal estimation, if he had re- 
fused to do justice, without the compulsory process of the 
Law. If one great and good man cannot be degraded by a 
suit against him, if his defence be fair and reasonable ; nei- 
ther can fifty, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, or a 
million: and whether they constitute a mere partnership or 
company, or constitute a J^ation, can make no possible dif- 
ference, in the estimation of wisdom and virtue, good sense 
aad true honor. I refer with great satisfaction to the ad- 

. rafale remarks of Chief Justice Jay, on this subject, in 2 
«t)all, 472—3. The conduct of New York and New Jersey, 
Xa relation to the Steam-Boat controversy, as testified by 
their Acts of Assembly, cannot be too much admired, as 
exhibiting a noble and dignifi^ed love of order and peace- 
The Act of New-York, of 18^0, declares, that her juris- 
diction on the waters in controversy, had been " hitherto 
actually and constantly exercised or possessed" by New 
York, and that it was to be " preserved, maintained and 
defended by all lawful ways and means, until this State 
shall be evicted thereof by due course of law ;" while that 
of New Jersey concludes — " Provided always, that nothing 
in this act contained shall be so' construed as to have any 
operation against any patent right or privilege obtained un- 
der the Constitution or Laws of the United States." In 
speaking of the latter Act, Chancellor Kent expressed the 
opinion, that the constitutionality of the New Jersey Act 
was to be decided first, by the Courts of New Jersey, and 
then by the Supreme Court. 4 Johns. Chy. Cas. p. 429, 
431, Livingston and Tomkins. 

Those who advocate the authority of the National Govern- 
ment to make internal improvements, to protect domestic 
manufactures, to charter a National Bank, &c. are often 
charged with a wish to degrade the State Governments to 
mere corporations. And what, let me ask, are they but 
corporations ? " From the moment of their association," 
says Chief Justice M'Kean, (1 Dall. 44) " the United 
States necessarily became a body corporate,^^ *' But still it 
maybe insisted," says Judge Cushing, 2 Dall. 468, " that 
this will reduce the Stales to mere corporations : and take away 
all their sovereignty. As to corporations, all States whatever 
are corporations^ or bodies politic." In 3 Dall. 473, Chief 
Justice M'Kean says of our system of Gove.'nment, *' It is 
in some particulars JVational, in others Fedeial, and in all 
the residue Territorial, or in Districts, called States." 
The King in England is called a corporation, 10 Co. 29, b. ; 
^nd so is the Parliament, 1 Shepard's Abrt. p. 431. '* The 



115 

word eorporatlons, in its largest sense," says Judge Iredell, 
2 Dall. 447, ^* has a more extensive meaning than people 
are generally aware of. In this extensive sense, not only 
each State singly, but even the United States may, without 
impropriety^ be termed corporations." Whenever, there- 
fore, the advocates of a Government, " consolidated as far 
as practicable,^^ (to use the words of Mr. Charles Pinckney, 
in his Observations on his Plan of Government, p. 16) shall 
be charged with degrading the States into corporations, they 
have only to cite as their justification, the sentiments of 
M^Keao, Iredell and Gushing. For myself, I hold empha- 
tically, that if either party be degraded by the name cor- 
poration, it is the Union, and not the States ; for these are 
appropriately corporations, as will be hereafter shown. 

NOTE N. PAGE 46. 

I place here, a list of the Judges of the Supreme Court, 
because I know not any body of men, whom this or any other 
country has produced, who are entitled to more enlightened 
admitation, more sincere gratitude, more profound respect 
for their talents, learning, virtues and services. Theirs, 
is indeed, a parental guardianship, full of moral dignity and 
beauty, sustained by the energy of wisdom, and adorned by 
the simplicity of justice and truth. 

Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States from 
the time of its first establishment ; with the dates of their 
Commissions : 

John Jay, Chief Justice, 26th Sept. 1789 ; William 
Gushing, Associate Justice, 27th Sept. 1789 ; James vVil- 
son, Associate Justice, 29th Sept. 1789 ; John Blair, Asso- 
ciate Justice, SOth Sept. 1789; James Iredell, Associate 
Justice, 10th Feb. 1790; Thomas Johnson, Associate Jus- 
tice, 7th Nov. 1791 ; William Paterson, Associate Justice, 
4tb March, 1793; John Rutledge, Chief Justice, 1st July, 
1795; Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, 7th Jan. 1796; 
Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice, 4th March, 1796; Bush- 
rod Washington, Associate Justice, 20th Dec. 1798; Al- 
fred Moore, Associate Justice, 10th Dec. 1799 ; John Mar- 
shall, Chief Justice, Slst Jan. 1801 ; William Johnson, 
Associate Justice, March, 1804; Brockholst Livingston, 
Associate Justice, 20th Nov. 1806 ; Thomas Todd, Associ- 
ate Justice, 1S07 ; Gabriel Duvall, Associate Justice, 18tb 
Nov. 1811; Joseph Story, Associate Justice, 18th Nov. 
1811 ; Smith Thompson, 9th Dec. 1823; Robert Trimble ; 
Joha M'Lean, 7th March, 1829. 
19 



114 

NOTE 0. PAGE 47. 
I eannot forbear from giving here some passages from tbe 
©pinions of the Supreme Court, as specimens of the charac- 
ter of that Tribunal, which, if it needed any other vindica- 
tion than that, which is recorded in the pages of Dallas and 
CJranch, of Wheaton and Peters, would find it in the 4th 
No. of tbe Southern Review, at page 576, in the article on 
the Georgia Controversy, ascribed to our Representative 
in Congress, from Charleston District. 

EXTRACTS. 

** In delivering my opinion on this important case, I feel 
myself deeply affected by the awful situation in which I 
stand. The uncommon magnitude of the subject, its novel- 
ty, the high expectation it has excited, and the consequence 
with which a decision may be attended, have all impressed 
me with their fullest force. I have trembled lest by an 
ill informed or precipitate opinion of mine, either the honour, 
the interest, or the safety of the United States should suffer 
or be endangered on the one hand, or the just rights and pro- 
per security of any individual on the other. In endeavouring^ 
to form the opinion I shall now deliver, I am sure the great 
object of my heart has been to discover the true principles 
upon which a decision ought to be given, unbiassed by any 
other consideration than the most sacred regard to justice. 
Happy should 1 have thought myself, if I could as confident- 
ly have relied on a strength of abilities equal to the great- 
ness of the occasion." By J. Iredell, 3rd Dallas, 256. 
Ware vs. Hylton. 

'' To the general observations made on this subject, it will 
only be observed, that as the Court can never be unmindful 
of the solemn duty imposed on the Judicial Department 
when a claim is supported by an act which conflicts with the 
Constitution, so the Court can never be unmindful of its duty 
to obey laws which are authorised by that instrument." 
Fisher vs. Blight, 2 Cranch, 396. By Chief J. Marshall. 

" Tkat this Court dares not usurp power is most true. That 
this Court dares not shrink from its duty is not less true. No 
man is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situa- 
tion. No man is desirous of becoming the peculiar subject 
of calumny. No man, might he let the bitter cup pass from 
him without self reproach, would drain it to the bottom. 
L)Ut if he has no choice in the case ; if there is no alternative 
presented to him but a dereliction of duty, or the opprobri- 
um of those, who are denominated the world, he merits 
the contempt as well as the indignation of his conntry, who, 
can hesitate which to embrace. 



115 

<* That gentlemen, in a case the most interestin*, in the 
zeal-with which they advocate particular opinions, and undef 
the conviction in some measure produced by that zeal, should 
oh each side press their arguments too far, should be itopd- 
tient at any deliberation in the Court, and should suspect or 
fear the operation of motives to which alone they can ascribe 
that deliberation, is perhaps a frailty incident to human na- 
ture ; but if (my conduct on the part of the Court could 
warrant a sentiment that they xcould dtviate to the one side or the 
other from the lint prescribed by dxfty and by laxo, that conduct 
would be viewed by the Judges themselves^ with an eye of extreme 
severity., and would long be recollected with deep dnd serious 
regret.'''' 4 Cranch Appendix, p. 506, U. S. vs. Burr, per 
Ch. J. Marshall. 

*' The duties of this Court, to exercise jurisdiction where 
it is conferred, and not to usurp it where it is not conferred, 
are, of equal obligation. The Constitution, therefore, and 
the law, are to be expounded, without a leaning the one 
way or the other, according to those general principles 
which usually govern in the construction of fundamental op 
other laws." By Ch. J. Marshall. B. U. S. vs Deveaux. 
6 Cranch, 87. 

" That the Legislature can repeal statutes creating pri- 
vate corporations, or confirming to them property already 
acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such re- 
peal can vest the property of such corporations exclusively 
in the State, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they 
may please, without the consent or default of the corpora- 
tors, we are not prepared to admit : and we think ourselves 
standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon the fun- 
damental law of every free government, upon the spirit and 
letter of the Constitution of the United States, and upon 
the decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in re- 
sisting such a doctrine." By Judge Story. Terrett vs, 
Taylor, 9 Cranch, 52. 

" In the case now to be determined, the Defendant, a 
Sovereign State, denies the obligation of a law enacted by 
the Legislature of the Union, and the Plaintiff, on his part, 
contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the 
Legislature of that State. The constitution of our country, 
in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered ; 
the conflicting powers of the government of the Union, and 
of its members, as marked in that constitution, are to be 
discussed ; and an opinion given, which may essentially in- 
fluence the great operations of the government. No tribu- 
nal can approach such a question without a deep sense of it» 
importance, and of the awful responsibility involved m its 



116 

decisioB. But it must he decided peacefully, or remain « 
source of hostile legislation, perhaps, of hostility of a*stiH 
more serious nature ; and if it is to be so decided, by this 
tribunal alone can the decision be made. On the Supreme 
Court of the United States has the Constitution of our coun- 
try devolved this important duty." By Ch. J. Marshall. 
M'CulIoch vs. Maryland. 4 Wheat. 400, 1- 

" Questions of this nature are always of great importance 
and delicacy. They involve interests of so much magnitude, 
and of such deep and permanent public concern, that they 
cannot but be approached with uncommon anxiety. The 
Sovereignty of a State in the exercise of its legislation, is 
not to be impaired, unless it be elear that it has transcended 
its legitimate authority : nor ought any power to be sought, 
much less to be adjudged, in favor of the United States, un- 
less it be clearly within the reach of its constitutional char* 
ter. Sitting here, we are not at liberty to add one jot of 
power to the National Government, beyond what the people 
have granted by the Constitution : and, on the other hand, 
we are bound to support that Constitution as it stands, and 
to give a fair and rational scope to all the powers which it 
clearly contains." By J. Story. 6 Wheat. 48, Houston vs. 
Moore. 

*' Thfl questions presented to the Court by the two first 
points made at the bar, are of great magnitude, and may be 
truly said vitally to affect the Union. They exclude the 
enquiry whether the Constitution and Laws of the United 
Stales have been violated by the judgmeat, which the Plain- 
tiffs in error seek to review ; and maintain that, admitting 
such violation, it is not in the power of the government to 
apply a corrective. They maintain that the nation does not 
possess a department capable of restraining peaceably, and 
by authority of law, any attempts which may be made, by 
a part, against the legitimate powers of the whole ; and that 
the government is reduced to the alternative of submitting 
to such attempts, or of resisting them by force. They 
maintain that the Constitution of the United States has pro- 
vide'! no tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of the 
laws or treaties of the nation ; but that this power may be 
exf!icised in the last resort, by the Courts of every State 
in the Union. That the constitution, laws, and treaties, may 
receive as many constructions as there are States ; and that 
this is not a mischief, or if a mischief, is irremediable. 
These abstract propositions are to be determined; for he who 
demands decision without permitting inquiry, affirms that 
the decision he asks does not depend on inquiry. 



117 

♦'^ If such be the constitution, it is the duty of the Court to 
bow with respectful submission to its provisions. If such be 
not the constitution, it is equally the duty of this Court to 
say so ; and to perform that task which the American peo- 
ple have assignee! to the Judicial Department." By Ch. J. 
Marshall, in Cohens vs Virginia. 6 Wheaton, 377. 

" The Slate ot Np\\-YciI naintaired the constitution- 
ality of these laws ; and their Legislature, their Council 
of Revision, and their Judges, have repeatedly concurred in 
this opinion. It is supported by great names — by names 
which have all the titles to consideration that virtue, intel- 
ligence, and office, can bestow. No tribunal can approach 
the decision of this question, without feeling a just and real 
respect for that opinion which is sustained by such authori- 
ty ; but it is the province of this Court, while it respects, 
not to bow to it implicitly : and the Judges must exercise, 
in the examination of the subject, that understanding which 
Providence has bestowed upon them, wiih that independence 
which the people of the United States expect from this de-* 
partment of the Government." By Ch. J Marshall. Gib- 
bons «*. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 186. 

" This Court has uniformly professed its disposition, in 
cases depending on the laws of a particular State, to adopt 
the construction which the Courts of the State have given to 
those laws. This course is founded on the principles, sup- 
posed to be universally recognized, that the Judicial Depart- 
ment of every Government, where such department exists, 
is the appropriate organ for constructing the Legislative 
acts of that Government. Thus no Court in the universe, 
which professed to be governed by principle, would, we 
presume, undertake to say, that the Courts of Great Bri- 
tain, or of France, or of any other nation, had misunder- 
stood their own statutes, and therefore erect itself into a 
tribunal which should correct such misunderstanding. We 
receive the construction given by the Courts of the nation 
as the true sense of the law, and feel ourselves no more at 
liberty to depart from that construction, than to depart from 
the words of the statute. On this principle, the construc- 
tion given by this Court, to the Constitution and Laws of the 
United States is received by all as the true construction ; 
and on the same principle, the construction given by the 
Courts of the several States to the Legislative acts of those 
States, is received as true, unless they come in conflict 
with the Constitution, Laws, or Treaties of the United 
States." By Ch. J. Marshall. Elmendorf rs. Taylor, 10 
Wheat. 159, 160. 

'' Independently of the consideration, that a decision of the 



lis 

Supreme Court of the United States, is entitled to the 
liighest respect, in all cases, a decision upon provisions of 
the Constitution, is emphatically entitled to our utmost re- 
spect. ! consider that Court as paramount, when deciding 
on an article of the Constitution, and an act of Congress 
passed under its express injunction ; and whatever might be 
my individual opinion, I should feel it my duty to surrender 
it to their controuling authority." By Ch. J. Spencer. An- 
drews rs. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 164. 

" But what is the course of prudence and duty, where 
these cases of difficult distribution as to power and right 
present themselves. It is to yield rather than encroach ; 
the duty is reciprocal, and will no doubt be met in the spirit 
of modtiration and comity. In the conflicts of povver and 
opinion, inseparable from our very peculiar relations, cases 
may occur, in which the maintenance of principle, and the 
administration of justice, according to its innate and insepa- 
rable attributes, may require a different course ; and when 
such cases do occur, our Courts must do their duty ; but until 
then, it is aihninistering justic«» in the true spirit of the 
Constitution and Laws of the United States, to conform, as 
nearly as practicable, to the administration of justice in the 
Courts of the State." By J Johnson, Fullerton vs. B. U. S, 
1 Pet. 614 

"The Judicial Departmpnt of every government, is the 
rightful expositor of its laws; and emphatically of its su- 
preme law. If in a case depending before any Court, a 
legislative act shall conflict with the Constitution, it is ad- 
mitted that the Court must exercise its judgment on both, 
and that the Constitution must controul the act. The Court 
must determine whether a repugnancy does or does not ex- 
ist ; and in making this determination, must construe both 
instruments. That its construction of the one is authority, 
while its construction of the other is to he disregarded, is a 
proposition for which this Court can perceive no reason." 
2d Peters, p. 524. Bank of Hamilton vs, Dudley. Per Ch. 
J. Marshall. 

JVb/e. Mr. M'Duflie in his Pamphlet against the Georgia- 
Trio, says thus at p. 17. " It is not less evident that it 
belongs to the ^ atbnaljudiciary^, to pronounce on the con- 
stitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Laics of the .A/a- 
tional Legislature. Its jurisdiction extends to all cases arising^ 
wuier tlum ; and it is hard to conceive how in any possible 
case a federal judge, can decide a case arising under a law^. 
without pronouncing on the constitutionality of that law. liy 
fact, it would be in vain and idle to make the laws of Congress 



119 

supreme, if the National Judiciary had not the power of enfor^ 
cing </iem." p. 17. 

The Supreme Cour* is justly characterised by President 
Monroe, (in his Message of December, 1824, Presidents' 
Speeches, p. 521) both as to its authority and value : 

" 1 he duties of the Supreme Court would be of great 
importance, if its decisions were confined to the ordinary 
limits of other tribunals ; but when it is considered that this 
Court decides, and in the last resort^ on all the great ques- 
tions which arise under our Constitution, involving those be- 
tween the United States, individually, beticeen the States 
and the United States, and between the latter and foreign 
powers, too high an estimate of their importance cannot be 
formed." 

The Decisions of the Supreme Court on Constitutional 
Law, are among the noblest Ccmmentaries on our Consti- 
tution : and among the most dignified, able ai.il finished 
specimens of our Political Literature. They ought to be 
alongside of the Federalist, in the Library of every educa- 
ted man in the Union. Will not some enterprising Booksel- 
ler republish them, simply abbreviating the statement of 
the case ; but preserving the arguments of Counsel, as well 
as the opinions of the Judges ? 

NOTE P. PAGE 53. 

It is somewhat singular, that the Hypercritics of the 
Anti-Tariff school, should not have discovered, that the term 
to regulate trade, did not contain in itself any power even to 
promote and encourage trade itself, but simply to establish rules 
for the government of captains and seamen, of entries and 
clearances, of the time and mode of paying duties, of the 
national character of ships, of the number of passengers, 
seamen, &c. &c. and that, to make any regulation, such 
as the tonnage act, is a violation ol the letter of instructions. 
The very mode of argument, which shows, that you cannot 
use this power according to any wise, practical construe' 
tion, but for the purpose of promoting commerce, as one 
great end, also proves that you cannot promote commerce^ 
without due regard to the interests of manujactures, as in«e- 
parabUy on an enlarged view of the subject, from those of 
commerce. 

NOTE Q. PAGE 54. 

The present duty on foreign cottons of 3 centi per pound; 
is obviously a decided advantage to the Planter. If he com- 
plains, tbat the duties on cotton cloths are an miconstittUioiuit 



120 

bounty to the cotton mcinufaclurer, why does he not on prih" 
ciple apply to Coagress, to take off the protective duty oft 
foreign cottons, as an unconstitutional bounty to the cotton 
grower ? To be consistent, he ought to do this, for Con- 
gress, according to his doctrine, has no more authority to 
protect and encourage agriculture, than manufactures. Ac- 
cording to my view of the Constitution, Congress has power 
and is bound to do botk. As far back as 1790, Alexander 
Hamilton says, (Rep. on Manuf. p. 260 — 1) " The present 
duty of three cents per pound on the /oreto-»i rate materials, 
is undoubtedly a very serious impediment to the progress of 
those manufactories." This bounty the Planters have en- 
joyed all along, since the cotton manufactories have thriven 
in the United States, and if the time should ever come, 
when the manufacturers shall apply for the repeal of the 
duty, (and " to secure to tlie national manufacturers so es- 
sential an advantage, a repeal of the present duty on im- 
ported cotton is indispensable," Hani. Rep. on Manuf. p. 
2G1) so as to enable the cotton-grower of Brazil, &c. to 
undersell our raw material in our home market, I doubt it 
would produce a greater excitement than the Tariff of 1828. 

NOTE R. PAGE 56. 

The Life of Washington by Ch. J Marshall, is a book of 
which Americans may well be proud : not indeed as a rhet- 
orical composition, for which the ancient Historians are so 
unreasonably extolled ; but as surpassing in the true dignity 
and usefulness, simplicity and beauty of History, all that 
can be found in Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon, in 
Livy or Sallust, Caesar or Tacitus. To be thoroughly ver- 
sed in the facts, and to be deeply imbued with the spirit of 
Washington's Administiation, is worth more to the citizen of 
the United States, than the most intimate acquaintance with 
the whole body of Greek and Roman History. How indeed 
could it be otherwise, since the sentiments and writings, 
the conduct and entire character of Washington exhibit more 
of true glory, and of exalted patriotism, than is to be found 
hi the Statesmen and Heroes of Antiquity. Washington's 
Letter to the Governors of the States, his Inaugural Ad- 
dresses, his Messages, and his Farewell Address, are of 
more value to us, as a text book of national and social mor- 
als, of enlightened duty, virtuous moderation, and a dignified 
yet ardent love of regulated freedom, than all the political 
wisdom of Ancient History. To Ch. J. Marshall, as a Rep- 
resentative in Congress, as an Ambassador, as a Judge and 
a Historian, bis Country owes an ample debt of gratitude. 



May oui' children's children acknowledge \t with pride, and 
4'epay it with a thankful, admiring spirit. His will ever 
be, in American annals, peculiarly and emphatically " clar- 
um et venerabile nomen." 

NOTE S. PAGE G5. 

If any doubt had been or could have been entertained in 
1789, as to the Constitutionality of the Protective System, 
the following passage from Judge Burke's opinion in the case 
of Zylstra vs. the City Corporation, must satisfy us, that he 
at least of the five, would have noticed it. *' Upon the 
slender basis of the confined authority which the Corporation 
really possesses, to erect such a high superstructure, and 
insist publicly on their right to do so, proves another thing — 
it serves to illustrate upon a small scale, the intruding, 
usurping nature of power ; and with how much greater thau 
the energy of a wedge, it is constitutionally at work to force 
open for itself, more elbow room and free license, than fore- 
sight itself or reason ever intended." 1 Bay, 383- 

NOTE T PAGE 6$. 

It gives me pleasure to notice, in connection with the his- 
tory of the Tariff Question, the letters of Mr. Madison to 
Jos. C. Cabell, in Sept. and Oct. 1828. I regard these as 
the patriarchal testimony of this venerable Patriot, to the 
cause of established order, to the sacredness and value of 
cotemporaneous and continued exposition of the Constitution. 
There cannot be a stronger proof of the blindness of preju- 
dice, and the suspicious, inexorable spirit of excitement, 
which prevails in Carolina, than the fact, that these letters 
of this aged and eminent Statesman, (bearing all the marks 
of a clear, strong, practical mind) are rejected as utterly 
unworthy of his earlier years, unworthy ol the coadjutor of 
Washington and Hamilton. But Carolina cannot deprive 
him of her own homage from n87 to 1827, freely, gladly 
yielded to the object of her esteem, admiration and grati- 
tude. Mr. Madison may well leave her to reconcile this 
inconsistency of sentiment and conduct. 

NOTE U. PAGE 71. 

Two of the most eminent men of Carolina were the advo- 
cates of the Tariff of 1816. In reply to Mr. Randolph's 
motion to strike out a clause of the bill, Mr. Calhoun said, 
that, till then, the debate had been confined to the degree 
of protection to cotton and tcoollen manufactures : that the 
iOQoUoQ of Mr. R. went on the ground that the manufactu* 
20 



152 

Ters ought not to be encouraged : that the subject was con> 
nectec! with the security of the country : that without manu- 
factures, industry would be without the means of produc- 
tion : that manup'tturcs, agriculture and comuierce combi- 
ned^ were indispensable to a flourishing state of the currency 
and Jinances : that a system of internal improvements should be 
added : that liberty and union were inseparable : that Dis- 
union comprehended almost the sum of our political dangers. 
(Nat. Intel!. 22d April, 1816.) On the 8th April, 1816, 
Mr. Randolph moved to postpone the Tariff bill, on the 
ground, that the subject had not been properly matured by tht 
Treasury Department : and he therefore moved, that the 
<^ld and new bills should be printed side by side, that each 
member might consult his constituents. Mr. Lowndes denied 
the charge, he said that circulars had been sent all over 
the country, and tliat the bill would be beneficial to the ge- 
neral interests of the country Mr. R's motion was lost, by 
a vote of 47 for, and 95 against it. — (Times, 8th April, 
1816). it is certain then, that Mr. Lowndes and Mr. Cal- 
houn were decided advocates of the TariiTof 1816, and that 
neither they nor Mr. Randolph imagined the protective system 
to be unconstitutional Thky never doubted on the subject ; 
for if they had, we know that they would have acted on the 
noble principle of Judge Chase, " Whatever is unconstitution' 
al is inexpedient.^^ Show me then the Carolina Statesman 
of the present day, opposed to the Tariff principle, vyho is to 
compare with them. 

Carolina says, that she is contending for principle : all the 
advocates of her Resolutions of '25, "'27 and '28 hold the 
same language. The Resolutions of '25 and '27 place in- 
ternal improvements on the same footing of principle, as the 
Tariff. Indeed it seems impossible to deny, both upon 
principle and precedent, that internal improvement stands 
upon inferior ground to the Tariff, as a constitutional mea- 
sure. And yet, Carolina sends Mr. M'Duffie as a Repre- 
sentative, <ind gives her vote to Mr. Calhoun, as Vice Pre- 
sident, when she knows, that they are among the ablest 
and most illustrious advocates of internal improvement. Is 
THIS THE CONSISTENCY OF PRiNciPLii ? As 3 Carolinian, I 
feel mortified at such a specimen of inconsistency. As a 
Citizen of the Union., I rejoice that the State price of Ca- 
KotiNA has been victorious over her State principles : 
that Carolina is too National to sacrifice on the altar of 
State rights, the most distinguished of her Public Men. 
May they long be spared to honor and adorn Carolina, 
against her principles, to dignify, illustrate and bless the Union, 
according to the enlarged views and national policy of those 



123 

" immortal Patriots and Statesmen," Washington, Madison 
and Hcimilton ! 

Gen. Ilayne, in his remarks on presenting the Protest of 
this State, to the Senate of the United States, on the 10th 
February last, refers to the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. 
Giles, of26(hDec 1825, and remarks, " After this, what 
candid man will pretend to doubt the opinion of Mr. Jeffer- 
son .'' If it can be shown, that on any previous occasion, Mr. 
Jefferson used language on this subject, susceptible of mis- 
construction, here is conclusive proof that he died, as he lived 
" true to the faith." I would refer my friend. Gen. Hayne, 
to Mr. Jefferson's Messages of Dec. 1801, Dec. 1803, and 
Nov. 1808 : and ask, in his own language, " After these, 
what candid man can doubt Mr. Jefferson's opinion" of the 
power of Congress } Who would not rather have the official 
sentiments of Mr Jefferson, in the nsponsi6/e station of Pre- 
sident, in 1801 and 1808, his first and last annual messages, 
than his opinion, as h private citizen, in 1825 ? The former is 
PUBLIC OFFICIAL EXPOSITION, tke latter only private indi- 
vidual JUDGMENT. 

But let us grant, that Mr. Jefferson meant that Congress 
did not possess the protective power, through the Revenue 
system ; yet it must be granted, that he did recognize a 
protective power in Congress If so, what was its nature ? 
If it does not exist under the shelter of duties, where does 
it reside .-' Is it to be found in the form of prohibitions of 
rival articles ? But the prohibitory power is a part of the 
power to regulate trade, and of the system of duties : and 
if you can prohibit in loto by a duty, amounting to prohibi- 
tion, you can exercise the same species of pov^er in any less 
degree : and therefore, you may ascend step by step, from 
a small beginning, up to the point of prohibition. But, if 
not found in this form, is it in the form of premiums and 
pecuniary bounties ? If so, then it follows, that having 
authority thus to appropriate the public money. Congress 
would have the unquestionable power to lay duties for the 
purpose. Thus it cannot be denied, that the revenue sys- 
tem would be made subservient to the promotion of manu- 
factures : and assuredly the duty would be laid, if wisely 
laid, with a view to their encouragement in both forms. 
Thus we might go through the whole list of the means of 
protection, and every one would be found an inseparab/e 
part of the general scheme of regulating commerce, and of 
laying duties. As then Mr. Jefferson did acknowledge a pro- 
tective power in Congress, it is not very material to the ma- 
nufacturer, what form it assumes. But, if it be granted, 
that the end (protection and encouragement) may be lavv- 



124. 

fully attained by Congress, (and who can deny this, that 
reads Mr. Jefferson's Messages, p. 66, 67) then it is an 
obvious consequence, that all the natural^ customary modes 
are placed in the hands of Congress, as means, among which 
they are to exercise the power o^ selection. 

I cannot forbear to notice here the argument against the 
propective system, founded on the 10th Sect, of 1st Art. of 
the Constitution. I had regarded it as a felo de se, according 
to every rule of good sense and of logic before I read the 
confirmation of my own view in M.-. Madison's Letter of 18th 
Sept. 1828. There is another view, however, founded on 
the very argument of my opponents, which is to my mind 
conclusive in favor of the protective pnwer. under the reve- 
nue system. Let us itrant, that the object of the Conven- 
tion, in the clause in question, was to enable the States to 
protect their own manufactures : and the conclusion is irresis- 
tible, that such proleclion was regarded as only a PAKt of a 
National scheme. On what ground, are the State laws res- 
pecting the election of Senators and Representatives, sub- 
jected to ihe contrnul of Congress, (Art. 1, S. 4.) but that 
this povver is a p rtion mP national power, thus entrusted to 
the States, subj'n,t to ih^ o/);>f//aie jurisdiction of Congress, 
as the Legislative Dr:po.-uory of national power. On what 
prinei|ile th-^n arc tin^ laws of a State, laying duties for the 
protection of its i.wn manufaciures, subjected to the cor.troul 
of Congress, but that this also being a portion of national 
power, a part of a general system, the supervising authority 
must be in the Union. But the argument does not stop 
here. Grant that the poftion of power thus vested is na- 
tional, vnd ttierefore, properly controllable by Congress ; 
yet the end fo. viich l!ie oo.ver is used as a means, is ac- 
cording to the position of the euetuies of the protective sys- 
tem, purely heal ani domestic, not general and national. 
An<l vet ihr^ duly liid for sach an object, is paid, not in the 
State, but into the \aiional iVeasury. This disposition of 
thb money de'/u>astrat'-s the end to be national, as well as 
the means. Foj- if C .ngress have the power to protect 
inanufaciures u Jer Ihj revenue system, then both the 
means amd tnd b.:iiig nati'DuiL there is consistency in subject- 
ing the Sti^lt la » to the revision of Congress, and in ap- 
propriating t>je suui raised, as a part of the nitijmt revenue. 
But IS Cyngresis ha.e not the protective power, through the 
ttieiiiuiii of ih:' revenue system, where is the confiotency, 
thv* justiCtN the Co/nmofj siiise, of using sncA metans, tor such 
an «..,d, and of applying herd rv^venue to national purposes .' 
Sue .. hovVi^ver. i% the reductio ad absurdum, to which the 
consti ucliwi of this clause by the adversaries of the Tariff, 



125 

leads us. Nor must we forget, that according to the above 
vieu', they ascrib- to the Framers of the Constitution, u 
monstrous inconsistency ; and according to .Wr. Madison's 
answer to the same reasoning, ihey attribute to the same 
illustrious men, an act of little less than downiight folly. 

NOTE t PAGE 95. 

I copy here (he following passage of the same letter' 
that it may not be said, I shuimed it on account of lh(^ cha* 
racter asciibed by Carolina to ihe 19tb ('ongress, so differ" 
ent from that of the Congress of 1783, as drawn by the 
pen of Washington : 

"■ If after all a spirit of disunion, or a temper of obstina- 
cy or perverseness should manifest itself in any of the 
States ; if such an ungracious disposition should attempt to 
frustrate all the happy effects that may be expected to flow 
from the Union ; if there should be a n-fusal to comply 
with the requisitions ; and if that refusal should re- ive all 
those jealousies, and produce all those evils, which are now 
happily removed ; Congress, who have in all their transac- 
tions shown a great degree of magnanimity and justice, will 
stand justified in the sight of God aiid man : and the Slate- 
alone, which puts itself in opposition to the oggreg> te wisdom 
of the Continent, and follows such mistaken and pernicious 
counsels, will be responsible for dll the consequences.''^ 

Let not Carolina flatter herself, that her opinion of the 
want of magnanimity and justice in the Congress of 1828, 
will justify her in the eyes of the world. They will con- 
demn her on Washington's principle, that the " aggregate 
wisdom of the continent" is against her ; or Jefi'er&ou's, of 
*' absolute acquiescence iti the decisions of the majority ;" 
of Charles Pinckney's, that "■ so inconsiderable a minority 
should be obliged to yield ;" and on that of George iVI'Duf- 
fie, that '-■ the Tariff act is the act of the i-eople." And 
let Caroliaa reraemberj that if she objects to the Tariff of 
1828, as unjust and oppressive, she objects to it on polilicaU 
•not on constitviional grounds ; and in such case, her only re- 
medy is petition by the people, the repealing power of Con- 
gress, and the elective franchise. But if she insist, that her 
objection is to its constituiionality, she must remember, that 
she cannot charge Congress from 1789 to 1820, with igno- 
rance and incapacity, or with a want of justice and magnan- 
imity : and yet her opposition and resistance, if right on Con- 
stitutional grounds, affect equally every Congress, from 1789 
to 1828; for whether the protective duty be one cantor fifty, 
is immaterial. 



\2ij 

POSTSCRIPT. 

I HAD intended to complete the published Speech, 
by adding the views taken in one part of the Speech 
as delivered on the second day, as to the import- 
ance, and indeed necessity (on a comprehensive 
view of the permanent policy of this country) of an 
extensive and growing manufacturing system. My 
object was to show, that both theory and experi- 
ence justified the conclusion, that this country 
could not possibly be as great, prosperous and hap- 
py, without manufactures as with them : that whe- 
ther we looked at home or abroad, this was equally 
true : that manufactures were inseparable fro n the 
commercial system ; and that the promotion of ma- 
nufactures was one of the most efficient, natural 
and well established modes of promoting commerce: 
that the manuiacturinginlerosl was, therefore, es- 
sentially and perinanently, a national, not a sec- 
tional interest : and that to encourage it was at 
once the duty of the Governmsnf, and the interest 
of the People. The greater importance, however, 
of the two other subjects, (the Constitutionality of 
the Tariff, and the doctrine of State Sovereignty) 
determined me to give them the preference : and 
when I had finished them, I not only found, that I 
could not spare the time to do more, but that to 
add any more to a Pamphlet already of 140 pages 
was absolutely out of the question. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

OP TH£5 OBATIOir- 

Pagp. 

Dedication to the People of South-Carolina, - 2 

Introduction, ... - - 3 

"J he Subject — Union. . - - _ 4 

Sources of argument, speculation ^nd experience, - 5 

Warnings frciu other countries, - - - 7 

Principle of Union in our s}stera, - - 9 

Do. " Renovation, - - - 10 

Do. " Mutual connection and interest, - 11 

Do. " Intercourse with each other, - 14 

Do. of our foreign connections, - - 15 

Do. of difference of opinion, "* - - - 16 

Conclusions, - - - - - 17 

Disunion supposed, - - - - - 17 

Immediate effects, - - - - 19 

Jealousy of interests and rights, - - - 20 

Danger fiom the military character and ambition, - 21 

Ruinous consequences, - - - - 22 

Address to the Cincinnati, - - - 23 

Influence of party spirit, - - - - 24 

Motives and materials for ambition, - - 25 

Fatal results of Disunion, - - - - 26 

Blessings of continued Union, - - - 27 

Address — Duties of Americans, - - - 29 

Condition and prospects of do. - - - 31 

Conclusion, - - - - - - 32 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

OF SPEECH, &.C. 

Address to People of South Carolina, - ' 8 

Protest of T. S. Grimke, Hth Dec. 1827, - 9 

Resolutions of Do. 12th Dec. 1828, - - 13 

Speech of Do. in Dec. 1828, - - 19 

Introduction to speech, - - - - 19 

Present Situation of So. Ca. - • - 21 

Authority of Cotemporaneous Expositions, - - 2J2 

Judiciary under the State Constitution to decide the 7 oo- 

Constitutionality of a Law, - ) 

Abuse and Usurpation of Power, how regarded by > g^ 

the Framers of the Constitution, - ) 



128 



Page. 

25 



Decisions of So. Ca. State Courts against acts of tlie 

Lei^islature and Governor as unconstilutioual, 

Conclusion from these Judgments, - - 28 

Collection of other Cases, - - - 29 

Same view as to National Constitution, - - 30 

Ori^jin of a National Judiciary, and its duties & objects, 30 

Adjudications of Courts of the United States, as to ) „ 

ConstitJitionality of Legislative or Executive acts ) *^ 

1. As to Acts of Congress, - - - 34 

2. As to Acts of tne President, - - - 36 
S. As to Acts, &c. of States, - - - 36 
4. As to Miscellaneous Case?, - - - 38 
Nature and Number of these Judgments, - - 39 
Approved by the Nation and the States, - - 41 
The (/onsequences, - - - - 42 
Constitutionality of Tariff Act for Supreme Court, 43 
TariiTdoes nut affect the Sovereign rights of So. Ca. 44 
Shall a Sovereign Slate submit to it ? - - 45 
Character of the Supreme Court, - - 46 
How tiie Qjestion can be tried, - - - 48 
Constitutionality of T«ariff examined as a question of /acf, 49 
Tariir not a palpable breach, - - - 49 
Our Duty, - ' . " " - 50 
Consiitutionality of Tariff a question of Construction, 51 
Wh:it is Cotemporaneous Kxposition, - - 61 
Union between Manufactures and Revenue system ^ ^^ 

and Regulation of Trade, natural and indissoluble, ^ 

Illustrated by Cotton Trade, - - - 54 

Members of Convention afterwards Members of Ad- ) ^ . 

ministration, or of Congress, - - j 

State rights Party of 1788, - - - 55 

Lea ling acts of the 1st Congress, and their fitness, 66 

Actual Manufactartis of United States, 1789, - 58 

Petitions of Manufacturers in 1789, - - 58 

Proceedings of Congress thereon, - - 59 

1st and 2d Acts of First Congress, - - 60 

Conclusions from foregoing views, - - 61 

Other proofs of notoriety of claim to the Protective I /,« 

Power, - - . - ^ ' 

Petitions of Manufacturers to 2d Session of 1 st Con- } «• 

gress, in January, 1790, - - ) 

Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manu/actures, - 63 

Conclusioufc from it, - . . - 65 

Prf^ofs from the Presidents Messages from 1 790 to 1^23, 66 

Conclusions therefrom, - - - 7P 

Sovereignty, Foreign or Domestic, - - 72 



Case of England and Scotland, ^ - - 72 

Case of our own Union, - - - - 75 

Consequences of our Annulling and Resisting the Law, 76 

Isi. As to otiier Nations, - - - 78 

JFatal effects on ourselves without war, - - 78 

The same with war, - - - - 79 

iForeign dependence ineritable, - - 80 

Carolina judging her sister States, - - 81 

State Sovereignty tested by Constitution of U. S» 82 

Charles Pinckney, on State Sovereignty, - - 86 

George M' Da tfie on the same, - - . 88 

The same on the radical doctrine, each party has a ) qq 

rightto judge for itself, - \ 

Followed out to its consequences, - - - 90 

Alibel on the Convention of 1787, - - - 98 

The Condemnation of Carolina, - . , 93 

Conclusion. --_.,,- 95? 



TABLE OF NOTES. 

A. p. 21. Parental character of the General Government, 98 

B. p. 23. On coteraporaneous exposition, - 99 

C. p. 26. On the protective power of Courts, - 101 

D. p. 35. Resolution of South Carolina of 1821, as ) i^-* 

to Bank U. S. - - • J ^"^ 

E. p. 35. Do. inVirginia, of 1819, - 103 

F. p. 38. To Osborn vs. B. U. S. - - 106 
G p. 40. Schedule of decisions of Supreme Court, 106 
H. p. 40. As to Westoi) vs. City Council, - 109 
I. p. 43. *' 12 Amendments proposed in 1789. 109 
K. p. 43. " Governor's Message, Nov. 1828, and ) jqq 

the Clergy case in Virginia, - \ 

L. p. 44. As to repeal of a void law, - - 110 

M. p. 45. " the motion of a State's being dishon- ) ,^ - 

ored as a party to a cause, - - 5 

N. p. 46. List of Judges of Supreme Court, - 113 

O. p. 47. Noble sentiments of Judges of S« C. 114 

P. p. 53. As to the term ''regulate trade," - 119 

Q. p. 54. " As to the duty on Cotton, - 119 

R p. 56. Character of Marshall's Life of Washington; 120 

S. p. 65. Judge Burke, - - - 121 

T. p. 65. Mr. Malison's Letter on tlie Tariff, - 121 

U. p. 71. Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Lowndes — Mr. Jef- ) ^^j 

ferson's opinions and 10th S of 1st. Art. of C. U. S \ 

j, p. 95 Washington's sentiments as to a refracto- i ^^^^ 

ry State, - - . - | ^'^^ 



if^ 



A 



\ 






\i 
















- - o - o v ^ 




_0 


















^"^^^ 












-^^0^ 


























'^0^ 




<j.* 



'oK 




'U-o^ 







1^ - « • 

















^Aq^ 







